JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 03/21/2006

SENATOR MCDONALD: --to order, and we're just going to do a little bit of a slow start in the hopes that more of the Members are trickling in. So though we are coming to order, we're going to stand at ease for one moment.

Thank you very much, and I apologize for the slight delay in getting the public hearing started. As it was noted to me, there are a number of Committees meeting, including some of who have their final action deadline today.

So we will have Members streaming in and out, I suspect, but please don't take that as anything for the nominees before us today. It's just unfortunately the way we do business around here sometimes. It seems to work. It's not always fully attended, but it seems to work and we muddle through.

I'd like to welcome all of the nominees who are here today and their family members. I congratulate all of you on today's developments.

What we normally do is allow the nominee to make a short opening statement, or long, as the case may be, but make a statement about your background and your contributions to the law and what you anticipate, if you are confirmed, your eight-year term being like going forward.

Having said that, Representative Walker, any opening comments?

REP. WALKER: I think you said it well.

SEN. MCDONALD: There you go. The first nominee that we will hear from is Attorney Harry E. Calmar, of Stonington. Good afternoon Mr. Calmar.

HARRY CALMAR: Good afternoon.

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

Please be seated. Welcome. Please proceed.

HARRY CALMAR: Good afternoon Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, Senator Kissel, Representative Farr and Members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Harry Calmar. I've been referred to by the nickname Hal my entire life. I live in Stonington Connecticut with my wife Martha and our three young children, Isabelle 11, Harry 9 and Margo 8.

I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you on my quest for appointment to the Judiciary. I am grateful to Governor Rell for placing my name before you and thank her staff for their assistance during the nomination process.

I know that this is a great honor I am seeking. As an attorney I have always held the members of our Judiciary in the highest regard and have the utmost respect for the judicial process.

The vast majority of our friends and acquaintances, however, are not lawyers and have never known a judge personally. Since Governor Rell announced my nomination I have been awed by how much our community holds judges in high esteem.

It humbles me to think that if I am appointed I would become a source of personal pride to Greek-Americans, to our friends and neighbors and to our community in Eastern Connecticut.

I assure you that I will always be sensitive to the fact that my demeanor, my actions, and my integrity will reflect on the public's confidence in our judiciary.

By way of background, I was born in Bristol, Connecticut and have been lifelong resident of this resident of this state. My father was a small businessman, my mother a public school teacher.

After graduation from Tufts University with a degree in religion and history in 1980, I attended the Albany Law School of Union University and received my law degree in 1984. Following graduation, I completed training as a Medical Service Corp officer with the United States Army Reserve.

And then conducted a public law clerkship in the areas of labor, administrative, and municipal law with the firm of Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie and Lougee in Worcester, Massachusetts.

In 1986 I joined the firm of Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan, Gray and Greenberg in New London Connecticut and married my wife Martha McCormick, a schoolteacher.

From the time that I joined Suisman, Shapiro, I have concentrated on labor and employment law. Initially my practice was balanced in its representation of employees, unions and employers.

At this time, I primarily represent private sector employers and public sector agencies in municipalities in all areas of employee relations and labor and employment law.

I enjoyed the great fortune of commencing my 20-year practice in Connecticut just as the field of individual employee rights was developing in this state and across the nation.

The opportunity to practice traditional labor law, utilizing negotiation and mediation skills, and actively participate in the development of employment law, utilizing litigation, research and analytical skills proved the unique opportunity to be a problem solver, advocate and sometimes almost a scholar.

I've been blessed with a successful practice that emphasizes the representation of almost all of the municipalities and public agencies in Southeastern Connecticut, a form of public service that I've cherished.

While this career has been fulfilling and offered broad litigation experience, the subject matter has been limited to labor and employment law.

I seek a career in our judiciary, both as an opportunity for public service, and selfishly, to expand the scope of my involvement in the law.

In service to the profession, I have served as a Special Master for the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut and as the co-chair of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the New London County Bar Association.

On an annual basis, I work with the State of Connecticut Officers Standards and Training Council POST, as a Certified Law Enforcement Instructor.

I regularly serve as a panelist and lecturer on the subject of labor and employment law throughout Connecticut.

I have been honored to be recognized by my fellow attorneys with an AV rating in Martindale Hubble and cited in the Publication of the Best Lawyers in America in 2006 and 2007 in the field of labor and employment law.

I was nominated for the Connecticut Bar Association's Distinguished Volunteer Roster in 2003.

Everyone in my firm is encouraged to play a leadership role in our community. I have served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the United Way of Southeastern Connecticut and as a Board member of the Southeastern Chamber of Commerce in the Stonington Community Center.

I currently serve as Chairman of the Chairman Chamber Foundation and as a Corporator for the Lawrence Memorial Hospital.

In concluding, I recognize that the concentrated scope of my practice has not exposed me to the many varied and challenging legal issues that confront our state's judiciary.

I believe, however, that I have many transferable skills. I am well respected for my case analysis and preparation.

I know too there will be a learning curve for me. I look forward to this enthusiastically. Lastly, I believe I am viewed as a considerate person who listens carefully and reaches thoughtful decisions.

I want to assure you, that if I am confirmed, I will serve with energy, humility and compassion. I thank you for your time and am prepared to address any questions that you may have. Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you Mr. Calmar. Let me just ask you a little bit more about, first of all, congratulations on the nomination.

You said that your experience, a lot of your practice had been in the labor and employment area.

HARRY CALMAR: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: And in the, I'm trying to get a sense from you, what the breakout was between your labor mediation and arbitration type of world and your courtroom world, whether in state court or federal court.

HARRY CALMAR: The, on a percentage basis, I would say that the actual appearances in court were limited. Perhaps less than 10% over the course of my career and generally associated with appeals.

The world I practiced in was a world of administrative law, grievance arbitration on cases before the State Board of Labor Relations, Wage and Hour Commission, OSHA. Agencies like that that my clients had significant exposure before.

SEN. MCDONALD: And how would you characterize the evidentiary basis of those types of proceedings.

HARRY CALMAR: I felt the rules are clearly looser than they are in the courtroom. However, we utilize the rules as best we can in terms of presenting a case that has all the relevant facts.

Objections are raised and arbitrators rule on them, although I think they tend to say they'll accept evidence and give it whatever weight they think is appropriate. Which is a much looser standard than you'd find in our court system.

SEN. MCDONALD: And how familiar, and given that work experience, how familiar would you say you are with court procedures in State Court in Connecticut. Both either in civil practice or in criminal practice.

HARRY CALMAR: I would say that I have very little exposure to criminal procedure. And somewhat more in court procedure.

But ultimately, I think the answer to your question is I have a great deal to learn in that area. I look forward to learning it and advancing my understanding of that area of the law.

SEN. MCDONALD: Tell me a little bit more about your involvement in the, in your Bar activities. What positions have you held?

HARRY CALMAR: I served as co-chair for many years with Tom Reilly on the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association. I've served as an instructor for POST, which is the organization in Eastern Connecticut that certifies our police officers. And I think that that is the extent of the Bar Association activities.

SEN. MCDONALD: If could explain a little bit more about your experience as a Special Master.

HARRY CALMAR: I was appointed as a Special Master by Judge Artington and have been assigned to six or seven cases over the past five years.

Generally, an individual who is associated with the management side of the employment law bar is partnered up with someone with more experience on the plaintiff side.

And we're called on by the Court, to essentially pre-try cases and help mediate a result. In 50% of the cases, we were successful in resolving the case so that it did not demand any more resources from the District Court.

SEN. MCDONALD: What is your Martindale Hubble rating if you know?

HARRY CALMAR: It's an AB.

SEN. MCDONALD: It's an AB?

HARRY CALMAR: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: And if you just recap a little bit more about the nature of your community service in Southeastern Connecticut.

HARRY CALMAR: As I indicated in my remarks, our firm is very supportive of community service. I served for six years on the Board of Directors of the United Way of Southeastern Connecticut, one year as it's chairman.

I served on the Board of the Stonington Community Center for four or five years. I also served as Director of Southeastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce.

I now serve on its foundation, which is a nonprofit 401(c)3 organization. And I served as a corporator for a large memorial hospital.

SEN. MCDONALD: Why do you think, as I understand it, there are several hundred attorneys that are on the list of eligible attorneys for nomination to the position of Superior Court Judge. Why do you think you're the one that needs to stand out among those hundreds of attorneys?

HARRY CALMAR: I don't know that in the end that my qualifications are any better than any of the other hundreds that have successfully passed the Judiciary Selection Committee. I know that in regard to my own qualifications, I love the law.

I have a strong ambition to broaden my exposure to the law beyond the field that I've practiced in labor and employment law.

I think I have the characteristics that would make a good judge. Someone who is compassionate, thoughtful, not afraid to make a decision, someone who would be respectful of all of the people that look to the judicial process to resolve their issues and problems.

I feel young and energetic and desire a long career on the judiciary. I think I have transferable skills, although my field of law was very focused, I have tried hundreds of grievance and arbitration cases.

And I appreciate the energy, preparation and talents that go into putting a case on. I would respect the lawyers that would practice before me.

When you pull all those qualities together, I should at least match, if not surpass the other candidates that could have been considered.

SEN. MCDONALD: Finally, in listening to your experience, I can see where a lot of the skill set that you had in labor relations, would be very useful in any courtroom type setting.

But I've got to ask you, without that body of experience, why should the State of Connecticut pay you as a judge to learn about civil procedure or criminal procedure in our court system, if you don't already know it?

HARRY CALMAR: I don't know that I would face any more of a challenge there than any other individual who focused in an administrative area of the law or a civil side of the law.

It's my understanding that generally attorneys are assigned to a criminal geographic area initially. And so there are many who would have to learn a good body of the law in order to do their job.

I can only assure you that I will take the job very seriously, study hard, learn as quickly as I can and apply myself to the facts of the case as they come up.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Lawlor

REP. LAWLOR: Thanks Mr. Chairman, and congratulations, Attorney Calmar.

HARRY CALMAR: Thank you Representative.

REP. LAWLOR: You've got a lot of very good reports on you from members of your community, people that you've worked with for many years, so I think that brings you here in good standing.

I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions. First of all, you mentioned that you've had the opportunity to be on the faculty at POST, the Police Offers Standards and Training Academy essentially. What kind of stuff do you teach over there?

HARRY CALMAR: I teach a course on personnel and the law with an element of sexual harassment training to police supervisors on an annual basis.

And I also teach a class on collective bargaining strategies, sexual harassment in personnel issues to Chiefs on a bi-annual basis.

REP. LAWLOR: Is that a course for POST actually, or a course for Chiefs?

HARRY CALMAR: The POST organization rotates in supervisors for seminars. We'll have taser training in the morning. They'll have search and seizure issues in the afternoon and they'll bring me in to do a personnel section, usually right before lunch.

REP. LAWLOR: So is collective bargaining strategy part of the certification process for Chiefs or something like that? Is that just an optional course they can take if they choose to?

HARRY CALMAR: Well, I think that the Chiefs that I've worked with enjoy understanding the collective bargaining process and the challenges associated with implementing discipline and other issues.

Because police are in a unique environment in Connecticut in that supervisors must be in the same bargaining unit as the rank and file. That creates an enormous challenge for them.

And most of our Municipal Employee Relations Act, supervisors are prohibited from being in the same union as those they supervise. Chiefs find this very challenging.

We discuss strategies, ways that you can get supervisors to buy into the management responsibilities without feeling like they've abandoned their fellow union members in the union.

And we discuss strategies. Not so much management versus union, but more how to function in an organization that has supervisors in the same union as the subordinates.

REP. LAWLOR: Well, I guess I'm just kind of curious if that's a formal part of a required curriculum for Chiefs or is that just a course that is offered. For obvious reasons a Chief or a supervisor will want--

HARRY CALMAR: I do not believe it is a formal part of their curriculum.

REP. LAWLOR: So you don't know if it is required or not.

HARRY CALMAR: No, but the sexual harassment training, diversity training and the strictly personnel law area is a required piece of the curriculum.

REP. LAWLOR: Got it. I'm sure you're probably aware that, assuming that you're confirmed, your first stop in the process after judge school will be some time in one of the geographical area courts where you'll probably be dealing with the day to day criminal docket.

Relatively minor cases, but big volume depending on where they send you. But certainly there would be a lot of cases with very quick decisions. You'll be dealing, a little bit like Turkish bizarre in there.

You know, making deals and people pleading guilty, and things happening very quickly. Have you ever been in that type of environment, as an attorney, where things are happening very quickly? There's a big waiting line and decisions are made quickly.

HARRY CALMAR: Representative Lawlor, in anticipation of a positive result today, I did ask one of the lawyers who practices exclusively in the area of criminal law and my friend to take me to the GA in New London recently.

I've been there occasionally over the years with clients and Housing Court and things like that. But I recognize the characteristics that would bring someone to describe it as a bazaar--

REP. LAWLOR: That's a-z-a, bazaar--

HARRY CALMAR: And recognize that it must be a very intimidating environment for the individuals that are there for the first time and have their whole life in front of them. I found it interesting and I look forward to the opportunity to function in that environment initially.

REP. LAWLOR: And you understand, that whatever you saw in New London, you can double or triple it to understand what it is like in New Haven, Hartford or Bridgeport's courts. It's just a lot more volume there.

HARRY CALMAR: I recognize that and I did have occasion to review the Commission's annual report and recommendations on diversity. I think I always knew that African Americans and Hispanics are over represented in our criminal justice system.

I think what the report what home to me in stunning detail was that there are two Connecticuts. Some of the statistics, for example, 50% of all prison population comes from our three largest cities.

It certainly brought home to me that New London is a different place from Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven and that I would have to be sensitive to that every day that I sat on the court.

REP. LAWLOR: Yesterday we were having a public hearing about some crime victim related issues and sex offender related issues. One of the women who testified before our Committee had been in the court in New Haven as a victim of a serious sexual assault.

I think that for those of us who are here relatively late last night listening to her, she told a very moving story about what it's like to find out after the fact that the offender in your case had agreed to a plea bargain with the prosecutors.

And that the case had been resolved and he had gotten a relatively lenient sentence. And find that out after the fact and there's a sort of re-victimization that goes along with that type of an emotion.

And I'm not sure if you're aware, but not too long ago, we amended our State Constitution to provide certain specific rights for victims of crime.

Including the right to be notified about court proceedings and the right to be present any time the victim, the defendant would have the right to be present at proceedings, the victim also has a right to be present.

And in particular, the victim has a right to object to, or support, any plea bargain recommended by the prosecutor prior to the judge accepting the plea.

So these are all rights in our constitution. And based on what this woman testified to yesterday, it appears that she was denied all of those rights.

She wasn't notified, she didn't have the opportunity to talk to the court before the judge accepted the plea. We're very moved by the sense of how much damage that did to her above and beyond whatever happened in the original incident.

And I wonder if you've given any thought at all, to the concept of constitutional and statutory rights for victims of crime and how those might play out if you have?

Obviously there are well-established rights for defendants in criminal cases. But out here in Connecticut there are specific rights for victims as well.

And it's often said in law school and elsewhere, that there is no right without a remedy. That we certainly don't know yet what the remedy is for victims who are denied their rights in court.

And I'm just curious what your thoughts are, especially since potentially in a week or two you're going to be in one of these court rooms where these decisions are being made quickly and there is a lot of pressure to move cases and resolve things.

And a victim may not be present. How have you thought about that, if you've thought about it at all?

HARRY CALMAR: I'm proud of the fact that our state amended its constitution in 1996 to explicitly set forth victims rights. I appreciate that it is an issue of great concern to this Committee.

And I understand that victims have the right to information, protection, reimbursement and a feeling that they are a part of the process.

I've been told anecdotally that victims that have been brought into the process as the Constitution anticipates, have felt good about the process even when they did not agree with the actual sentence that was imposed for example.

It's just the act of being involved, informed and participating brought them great comfort. I think it is a wonderful testament to the way the judicial process is dealing with victims.

I recognize also that there are constitutional rights for defendants that need to be protected. And that there will be times when that will be a difficult balancing act.

But I'm glad that our judiciary and the state have decided that the victims should receive special attention and should be constitutionally recognized.

REP. LAWLOR: Another, obviously, the criminal experience is something you'll get, assuming you're confirmed right off the bat, that's probably your first stop.

But judging from other judges who come before us, and the citizens who weigh in for and against their nomination, it seems like the most controversial stuff you might make, is if you ever end up in family court, right.

And I don't know if you've ever had any experience with that as an attorney, in divorce cases or child custody cases or termination of parental rights type situations. Have you ever been involved in that type of stuff?

HARRY CALMAR: The closest I've come is referring a good friend to one of the marital attorneys in my firm [inaudible] from my office to the opposite end of the hall. I've not had experience with that.

REP. LAWLOR: If you're confirmed and you're back here eight years and if there is a member of the public here to testify against your nomination, it will quite likely it will be based on a decision you make in family court.

At least, that's our experience. And recently we had a number of folks testify and we've had even more, sort of lobbying our committee, to address what they perceive to be an imbalance in the decisions in family court.

I think it is fair to say that at least they perceive that there is unfairness when it comes to fathers or men in divorce proceedings. They have a sense that the judges and the courts are much more likely to award custody to mothers rather than fathers, or wives rather than husbands, that type of thing.

And there is a whole assortment of legislative proposals to address that. I'm just wondering, as was the case with crime victims rights, forget about what your philosophical view is about how divorces go down, I mean you're not in the middle of that in your professional life. I wonder what thoughts you might have as to how you'd respond to people who feel that the system is unfair to men or fathers in those situations?

HARRY CALMAR: I'd like to think that if I'm here in eight years that even if someone disagreed with a ruling I made in a family matter that they'd still support my nomination because I was considerate of their views, thoughtful, and respectful.

That I gave them all of the rights they were entitled to in court and made a fair and balanced decision.

And I hope that I applied those traits and qualities and values to people who [inaudible] respect the decision I made, even if it was something that wasn't in their immediate best interest.

REP. LAWLOR: The follow-up question that I wanted to ask you, and I don't know whether it's a curse or blessing to go first, right, but I think all of the other--

HARRY CALMAR: In 15 minutes it will probably be a blessing.

REP. LAWLOR: --I'm sure. Laughter. But these are the kinds of questions we ask of all nominees because you know, I think, forget about philosophical views or your specific credentials coming to the process.

What I mean, things we look at, aside from qualifications, is judicial temperament and things like that. So we're just trying to get some general sense of how you react to these things through these questions so that's the purpose of it.

Beyond that, there is one thing that I'm very interested in at the moment, and that is, the process by which you come to be sitting in the seat you're sitting in right now.

And I'm just wondering, did you have an opportunity, I mean, aside from going through judicial selection, how long has it been since you've been approved by the Judicial Selection Commission?

HARRY CALMAR: I believe it was August of 2004.

REP. LAWLOR: And how was it, I assume that everybody in your position probably reaches out to folks and says, I've been approved and what, if anything, do I need to do to have my name in consideration for a judgeship? Did you have the opportunity to meet with anyone from the Governor's Office to talk about your prospects or were you summoned there and asked questions. How did that work?

HARRY CALMAR: About six weeks ago, and the whirlwind commenced then, not before, I received a call asking if I would, at 9:30 a.m. in my office, asking if I could meet the Governor at the Mystic Marriott at 1:00 p.m.

I went home, shined my shoes, put on a new tie and met the Governor in the lobby. She indicated that it was a greet-and-meet. She was very noncommittal about the process.

That it was simply an introduction. And I thanked her very much. I enjoyed the opportunity. I moved on. And things seemed to move very quickly after that.

REP. LAWLOR: Was that the first contact you had, I mean aside from the phone call asking you to come with the Governor's Office, had you spoke to other folks or how did that work?

HARRY CALMAR: I had certainly, in addition to advising all of my partners that I was interested in this career change, what people that I knew in the community who know that I was interested--

REP. LAWLOR: I'm not asking you really so much about the process you undertook on your own, I'm just talking, at what point did the issue sort of land on your doorstep?

Did the Governor, did someone else in the Governor's Office call you first for a preliminary interview? Or was this the first that you heard from the Governor's Office?

HARRY CALMAR: I had no prior contact from the Governor's Office before that 9:00 a.m., 9:30 a.m. phone call.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Representative Stone.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Congratulations on your appointment. Which is why I am to follow up a little bit on the questions about family law and handling those manners.

Your transferable skills that you mentioned will probably put you in good stead in having to handle a family docket because you dealt with difficult manners where people are taking firm positions in the labor law forum. Is that correct, that you've had to deal with tense situations where people are taking strongly opposed views?

HARRY CALMAR: I think there's nothing more tense than being in the middle of a negotiation at 2:30 a.m. in the morning with a hundred union people looking at going on strike and being out of work without their health benefits in five hours.

And the company looking at not being able to produce a product and make a profit in five hours. There are definitely some very stressful, strenuous situations that labor attorneys face.

One of the great things about the practice of labor employment law is that the practitioners, and that, I don't only mean the attorneys, but also the Union Representatives and company representative, are forced to be friendly and get along.

Because if you are successful, and negotiate a contract successfully, everybody has to go to work the next day and continue to have a relationship. There's always another contract to negotiate, there's always a grievance that needs to be resolved, a problem that needs to be mediated.

We have a wonderful bar, because we're compelled to get along and because our relationships go on. I've had friends in the labor world, whether they work for Council 15, or the Teamsters, who I've known for 20 years.

We've represented the same clients on both sides of the fence during that entire time.

REP. STONE: Thank you and I just wanted to mention that I assume you're eager to take on any assignment that you would be given in your new position.

I hear anecdotally that a number of members of the bench don't like to accept family court assignments. And I can understand that as a practitioner they are some of the more difficult matters to deal with in terms of the clients.

On the other hand, I am always a little disappointed to hear that because I find that the judges can do an awful lot of good in that court.

And it's a little easier than making decisions and not have to respond to the clients that who are under emotional strain or describe a potential settlement.

So I've always, I don't expect everybody to jump up and down and want to be assigned there. But on the other hand, I think you can do an awful lot of good in a family court.

Would you tend to agree that judges can play an important role in representing the judicial system because it is one of the only places where many people see our courts, and also really trying to do justice.

HARRY CALMAR: I would look forward to being a generalist. I think one of my primary motivations is to expand my legal horizons and get beyond the narrow focus of labor and employment law.

And I do see judges as, I think that that's what has been brought home to me over the last few weeks. All of our friends, neighbors and acquaintances who look at the judiciary with such high esteem.

It's not something that I've been that used to as an attorney. They look to judges and respect the system we have for dispute resolution. I welcome an opportunity to participate in that.

REP. STONE: Thank you for your responses. Good luck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HARRY CALMAR: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you. Are there other questions other than, Senator [inaudible]

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't know. I'm looking at you and I think we've met.

HARRY CALMAR: We have--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible] cases for the Town of Groton. And I think we met across the table. I was a union representative. I was the International Rep for the Town of Groton. And I remember your name--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And [inaudible]. I just wanted to congratulate you. I just wanted, I'm looking at the Calmar and I says, this name is familiar.

Then I looked to see the two Steelworkers cases and I said, that's what the problem is, the guy sitting on the other side of the table back then. And I think we lost then, so it's a tribute to your abilities.

You also mentioned that you were appointed by Janet Artington, Judge Janet Artington, that's another tribute to your abilities as a legal lawyer because Janet was a great labor lawyer. And as a matter of fact, I know, because she was on retainer with us and she was my lawyer for quite a while. So, I want to congratulate you. I don't really have any questions, I'm listening to everything here. But I'm glad to see you here--

HARRY CALMAR: Nice to see you here--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think we did have an amicable relationship with him. I thank you for being here.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Dyson

REP. DYSON: Thank you Mr. Chair. How are you doing Mr. Calmar. Am I pronouncing that correctly.

HARRY CALMAR: That's fine, yes. Thank you.

REP. DYSON: Please to see you here. Take my comments to be somewhat rhetorical because I intend for them to apply to everyone else that follows. So I don't have to repeat it.

But I'll say it to you, and then they will hear it and they can prepare themselves to respond to it by the time they get here.

In the first of all, I just want to point out some things that have taken place already. My Chair pointed out some things that took place last evening here, with the Judiciary Committee hearing.

And I raise the question about the judicial nominations that would be coming before us today. And I raise it in the context of the situation that my Chair mentioned.

There was a young lady last night who had come here to the Committee to talk about how she was treated by the judicial system. She was not informed about a deal that was made with a perpetrator of a vicious act on her.

And then there was another lady that came and talked about her perception of justice as related to her son. The Chair didn't point it out, but both of them were black.

And I noticed that you made a point of talking about the disparity within the system. And I said, gee, again judicial has made sure that the new people appointed have been made aware of the kind of questions I'm going to ask, especially as it relates to the disparity issue.

And so I just wanted to make a connection on a few things here. And I ask for your apologies in terms of my stretching this out as long as I'm doing so.

But first of all, you're joining a system because you're new. A judicial system that has been characterized as a study on disparity that you made reference to about the kind of people that get involved in the system itself.

And you can apply that to a collections or you can apply that to DCL, you can go right down the line. And so, you are now coming to join that system, to foster whatever.

And that fostering or that perception of just the opposite of what I heard you say earlier, someone else said. That perception of justice. For this group of people, it is a perception of injustice.

And I don't hold you responsible because you haven't joined yet until the approval comes, but you will be a part of the system because I don't assume that anything will take place that you would not be a part of the system, and so I'm concerned about how do we begin to deal with that issue of disparity?

Because it is so fundamental. If I took the two women who came last night, they were thoroughly whipped about how they thought they were treated by the system.

And I'll stress it again. My Chair talked about what happened to them, one of them at least. I make the connection on their color, to brought that out.

And this is something that all took place in a system in which they talk about your judicial temperament, you know about how important that is.

And then I venture to say too, maybe people would ask us to have a legislative temperament and what that would entail. And I know what legislative temperament would entail.

I can get thoroughly pissed if I want and nothing happens to me or I can be as submissive or quiet as I'd like to be and nothing happens to me. But you've got to be even keeled all the time.

So I'll grant you that I would be ever so mindful. And I'll accept the notion that someday you may get really pissed and blow up. That's okay. That's okay.

That would demonstrate to me that you're being human, and I can appreciate that. But my concern is around the issue of disparity. You're joining a system, [inaudible] about the people of color who have been impacted. And not only the people of color but women too.

And what I want to have done here because I raise this question with [inaudible]. What do you do about that? Will you think you ought to be active in terms of trying to find a remedy to that problem, that problem of perception?

The problem of people who will get chewed up in the system. The problem who feel they are not getting a fair shake from the system. Do you think you ought to take, be proactive in trying to deal with issue, or do you just join this system and accept what it is and move on as is? Which one would you choose do here, or what do you think ought to be done?

HARRY CALMAR: I would never want to join a system that didn't improve over time, whether it was a corporation that had no minorities in it or a school system or a community.

So I would hope to be an individual who was proactive in the course of my career in the judiciary making it a better place, a more diverse place, a better overall culture.

I would hope that in eight years when I came back you would turn to me and say, good job, Judge Calmar. Because I hear what you're saying.

I would take your thoughts and concerns to heart. It does occur to me reading that report and its indication that 50% of the children born in our state's capital are born to poverty.

That 50% of the adults do not have a high school education. That 80% of the children are born to single mothers. That it is not a problem that only the judiciary or [inaudible] can solve.

That it's a problem that needs all of the organizations of government and community working together to relieve the stress and poverty in Bridgeport, New Haven and in Hartford.

And there are not enough resources in one organization in government to do the entire job. But I would hope to be a proactive and engaged individual in that regard and someone who simply joins the system and went along for the ride.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let me respond, if I might. You've just mentioned poverty, single mothers, you mentioned the need for additional resources. Now you are joining a system by which if you feel for additional resources are important, then you got to beat on that system to make sure that they do that. Is that something you think you'll do in a system that you're about to join? That you're going to beat on them about providing additional resources to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen?

HARRY CALMAR: It is my understanding that the judiciary recognizes that there is a need for additional resources and that was one of the reasons for the report so that the issue could be studied and not whisked under the carpet and that it could be taken seriously.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, it's not, it's a little bit more than their just recognizing. [inaudible] goes on within the system that you are about to join. That you are to get them to make that a priority, if they believe that. If they believe it, they may not believe it.

After you've gotten beyond that hurdle that they are to make that a number one priority, what's the next step to make sure that it becomes a reality?

It might mean then that you come over here and beat on people, like on this Committee here to make sure they do that. There's somebody who is going to be about the business of doing that. Always just something that is going to happen, you make a pitch for it and somehow it might get to be a priority and then it gets over here and nothing happens and we go through the same stuff year after year. I'm trying to light a fire under you, you know.

HARRY CALMAR: You have.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there any other questions? Representative Hamzy.

REP. HAMZY: Mr. Calmar, I arrived here [inaudible] and I may be repeating some information, but in your application, your questionnaire has peaked my concern about the list of litigated matters that you were dealing with.

Many of which have to deal with labor negotiations and I noticed that you had served as a labor consult to many, several towns [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

--concern about is, how would, how do you feel you could handle as a judge labor issues when a great deal of your life has been directed towards representing, anti, I shouldn't say anti-labor, management positions in, my colleagues here are laughing, management positions in terms of labor disputes.

Could you describe how you feel you would handle this kind of situations, these kind of situations? I assume there will be more than one.

HARRY CALMAR: Senator Hamzy, thanks for the question. I think it's an excellent and one that I've given some thought to. I think you ought to know first that I was a United Autoworker at the Hyatt Bearing Plant in Bristol, Connecticut the whole time that I went through college and law school. So I have some roots there.

And my mother is a public school teacher and was involved in that system. When I first joined Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan and Gray, I actually provided legal assistance to the Teamsters 493 Local, many of whom are still great friends of mine today.

My move towards the management side of the table in terms of labor relations was one that was directed more from the business of law than it was any philosophy.

In fact, on those rare occasions when I had a client that wanted to get rid of a union, I did not participate and generally referred them to another law firm in the state that focused on those types of campaign and election issues.

I view myself as a labor practitioner as someone who is a problem solver. The goal was to get the workers back to work, the company's products moving to settle cases and grievances.

I thought that we had a, we were part of a wonderful system of dispute resolution and that just as a municipality deserved to have strong management rights and its interests protected on behalf of the taxpayer, that there were legitimate, viable and valuable rights on the part of union members that needed to be respected as well.

That my responsibility, along with turning to the other side, was to come up with a resolution that was in both parties interest. And the goal was to avoid litigation.

And avoid arbitration, and solve things voluntarily. I don't think I think I have an anti-union bias in that regard.

REP. HAMZY: Thank you. And I [inaudible], but I have not heard from anyone complaining about your bias, so that reinforces what you have said is reinforced by my experience. So thank you for your comments.

HARRY CALMAR: Thank you Senator Hamzy. Representative Winkler.

REP. WINKLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon and I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as a Superior Court judge.

Although I don't know you that well, I have had the opportunity to meet you, speak with you, and many of my colleagues and friends have spoken very highly of you.

And have praised your work locally in the Town of Groton, and have said that your demeanor would fit very well as serving you as a Judge of the Superior Court.

That when you've worked in the Town of Groton, you showed a great deal of respect to all of the participants and I look forward to supporting your nomination.

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

HARRY CALMAR: Thank you Senator McDonald. I suspect that there are number of other nominees who wish they were now in your position. Next, is Attorney Robert G. Gilligan of Wethersfield.

Good afternoon, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: I do so.

REP. LAWLOR: Please be seated. Good afternoon and welcome.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Good afternoon Chairmen McDonald and Lawlor and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee.

Good afternoon, my name is Robert Gilligan. It's an honor for me to appear before you this afternoon. I'm grateful to Governor Rell for the confidence she's shown in me by placing my name before you.

I currently practice law in Wethersfield. Since 1995 I've also served the General Assemblies as one of two Legislative Commissioners. I am proud to have worked with the talented lawyers from [inaudible], some of whom are here this afternoon. And in the past [inaudible] very capable committee administrator.

My wife and I have two daughters, both graduates of Trinity College. One teaches high school English in Massachusetts. The other has her Masters in Film Studies and is pursuing a career in film in New York City. Good luck. Laughter.

I was born and raised in Hartford and attended public schools in a multi-ethnic neighborhood. As one of five children, I quickly learned the life skills of compromise and sharing.

When I graduated from high school by father was unemployed so I, like my older brothers, went to work to help support our family.

After a short time as a construction worker, I began to work as a messenger in the Secretary of the State's Office. It was there that I met and was encouraged by the late [inaudible] to further my education. I enrolled in evening classes at the University of Hartford and, out of necessity, paid for my entire education.

In order to make up for lost time, I completed three academic years in two and worked nearly full-time. I attended the University of Connecticut School of Law and graduated with honors in 1972.

While in law school, I worked part-time in the Hartford County State's Attorney's Office and was ranked all three years in law school in the top 14% to 18% in my class.

I also received the American Juris Prudence Book Prizes for excellence in the study of evidence and workers compensation.

After law school I joined a medium size litigation law firm. As an associate I handled a variety of matters from routine [inaudible] claims to assisting with conflicts, [inaudible] liability cases.

Although it was primarily a civil practice firm, I was permitted to develop my own practice, which included criminal defense matters.

I successfully argued some of the first motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence in the Hartford Circuit Court at that time. I also handled the plaintiff's personal injury cases.

In 1974, I was elected to the General Assembly. And after several years it became increasingly difficult for me to balance legislative sessions and court appearances.

I gradually limited and eventually ceased to appear in court. I did however continue to provide litigation support within the office. From time to time, we like to think of ourselves as being self-made, but that's rarely the case.

In my case, I was fortunate to frequently find myself surrounded by very bright individuals who eagerly shared their wisdom and experience. The first was the late Ella Grasso, with whom I worked very closely for almost 10 years.

Others were John LaBell, the State's Attorney for Hartford County and Jerry Myer, the chain-smoking senior partner in the corner office, who would remind me monthly that the law is a jealous mistress that requires sacrifice and commitment.

As for the experience necessary for this high office, I respectfully submit that I am prepared and ready to serve.

As a Legislator and the Chairperson of several committees, I learned how to drill down into the details of complex issues, how to ask the right questions of persons providing testimony.

And most importantly, how to access the credibility of proponents or opponents of legislation.

As a Legislative Commissioner I've learned that our laws and legislative intent need to be expressed in clear, concise and constitutionally sound language.

As a lawyer I've learned that legal matters often involve a complex web of facts and principles which require detailed analysis, concentration and skill to resolve.

I've also learned that the legal profession demands time, effort and total commitment. I regularly work seven days a week, often 12-hour days and have earned a professional rating of AV and Martindale Huva.

Most importantly, as a person, my life experiences have taught me to be fair in all my dealings with others.

I believe that it was in part my respect for all persons and points of view that led to the unusual honor of being endorsed by three different political parties in my campaigns for State Representative.

[inaudible] I have pursued the path that brings me before you this afternoon. I believe that there is a natural tendency in all of us, not only to look back, but to look ahead.

I have been blessed with good health and an uncommon amount of energy and I believe a prodigious work ethic. I have spent most of my adult life in public service.

I believe that I have a lot more to give. That's my love for the law and all of its challenges that drives me.

And I pledge to commit the same zeal to judicial office if I am granted the good fortune to be approved by this Committee and the General Assembly. Thank you for your kind attention.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you Mr. Gilligan. Obviously you are no stranger to everybody on this Committee and in the General Assembly because of the years of service you've already dedicated to the State of Connecticut, both as a Legislator and a now in the Commissioner's Office.

But [inaudible] broad of range of experiences in private practice as well. In looking at your questionnaire, it basically indicates that you haven't been undertaking any kind of active practice for the last few years, at least, in either the civil or criminal context.

Could you explain a little bit more about what, unlike your Legislative Commissioner duties, what your private practice has been most recently?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: For the past 10 years my practice has primarily focused on commercial law. And again, that is a result of the early legislative difficulties and my transfer from a fair amount of family law, criminal law and all the other litigation practice areas, personal injury law.

To accommodate my legislative duties, like many on this Committee, made that shift to commercial law about 10 years ago.

I had, throughout my career, always been in a Firm that had a very involved litigation practice.

And as a partner, I was very much involved in the, primarily because in many cases I would be the responsible party, the [inaudible] for the relationship.

So I kept my hand in the, in litigation, but as I pointed out, perhaps 10 years, it has been a good ten years since I've actively appeared in court. Except in the probates courts [inaudible] and things of that nature.

REP. LAWLOR: I think that experience in commercial law would probably be a very valuable skill set as a judge knowing sort of the business side of transactions if you're in a civil litigation context.

It can often be very helpful, and so it sounds like you've over the span of your career had an opportunity to touch on almost all of the areas of law that you could ever be called upon to adjudicate as a judge.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: This is why I consider myself so fortunate to have that very broad experience. It was a delight to learn about so many different aspects of the law and that was the opportunity that I was given.

REP. LAWLOR: When was the last time that you ever practiced in the criminal area?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: I would say that it was a good 15 years ago. And it would be, the very last time I recall. It was a DWI offense.

REP. LAWLOR: And your experience in the probate court system, right now, how would you, you know that we are struggling with many of those issues.

Do you see the system in its current configuration working well, in your opinion, are there ways that the system could be streamlined or made more efficient?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Well, I think that in general the system functions very well. It tends, in my personal opinion, it tends to be a little too fragmented.

And, of course, the issue of non-lawyers who are presiding as probate judges is also one that's at times problematic.

There are differences in the courts. The probate courts are situated where there are institutions that require commitment proceedings and interviews that the institutions, it's totally different and much more difficult task.

But I know those are the issues that this Committee and the Joint Assembly is wrestling with.

REP. LAWLOR: And in terms of your professional associations, Bar Association-type activities, have you ever held any leadership positions in those Bar Associations?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: I have never been chairperson of any of the section groups. I've been active in maybe a dozen different groups and on the Executive Committee.

Committees not just a member, and actively attended all of the meetings that I conceivably of. I had an absolute thirst for learning as much as I could possibly can.

I have also contributed to Connecticut Bar Association seminars as a lecturer on commercial banking matters.

REP. LAWLOR: And commercial lending activities?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: What executive committees did you serve on?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: The Banking, and it's now called Financial Institutions section. The real estate and probate sections and the, I'm sorry, I can't recall any other commercial practice sections.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there other questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much. Welcome and congratulations.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. KISSEL: In reviewing your background, I see that your last term in the Legislature, was my first time. So, that's interesting. And I guess you were the predecessor to our good friend and colleague, Representative Doyle?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: That's correct.

SEN. KISSEL: In Wethersfield, so that seat just has an outstanding history right there. I'm assuming you have the strong support of our friend and colleague Senator Ciotto as well.

What were some of the committees that you enjoyed serving on when you were in the Legislature for 20 years?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Well, I began on the Environment Committee, Human Services Committee on my first term. And the Insurance and Real Estate Committee were my first term.

I chaired the Executive Nominations Committee. At the time, Governor Weicker was first elected and that was interesting because there was a rash of new commissioners that had to be shifted through the process and there was great tension at that time.

I also chaired the Banks Committee in or around the inner-state experiment [inaudible] and those were exciting times.

I chaired the Insurance and Real Estate Committee [inaudible] as well as served on, oh I think that that's probably covers all.

I was very fortunate in my second term to be elected as the Assistant Majority Leader. And at that time, the Assistant's were elected by the Caucus. There were only five of us at that time.

So on my second term having been elevated, I was pretty much excluded at that time from service [inaudible] committees. And I spent the bulk of my years in that Assistant leadership position.

SEN. KISSEL: One other question that I have is, I'm always a bit mystified, what exactly are your duties as a Legislative Commissioner? What does LCO, what do they really do?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: I'll rely on the folks that are at this table. As you know we are the counsel to the General Assembly. It is an entirely nonpartisan office that is overseen by two Commissioners. Max Case is my counterpart.

And it is our duty to draft the legislation as well as assist the Committees and the preparation and soup to nuts. We review legislation as it comes across our desk for its consistency with current statutory language and to make sure it's clear and concise and constitutional.

SEN. KISSEL: With all the staffers, and I apologize for jumping in, but we have quite a few folks this afternoon. But with all of the great attorneys that you work with, just mechanically, you say that it is your job to oversee and make sure it is consistent with all of our other statutes.

As you go in and you have work before you as a Legislative Commissioner, what exactly is the mechanical process that you would go through to do that? Is it simply relying on staff, or do you have to specifically go through a certain procedure?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: In the first instance, the staff of course, drafts all of the bills. The proposed bills are, don't receive necessarily the same attention that once they're raised and fully drafted.

As the Commissioners, we wouldn't see them until they are put into, they're out of the Committee in their reported form.

So the staff has, is under the supervision of a full-time director, Marcia Goodman who just retired and has been replaced by Laurie Shapiro.

So they have staff and we have an elaborate system for cross checking the statutes and it's all done by computer systems. We're the final approval is in one of the two Commissioners has to review the bill in the final stage.

And then after it is passed by both Houses, before it goes to the Governor for signature, we review it and have to sign off on it. So we're one of the few parties that will actually sign the bill at the end, as well as the Governor.

SEN. KISSEL: Okay. And so it is not a perfunctory job that you undergo, you really have to have great familiarity with the Legislative process and it's something where you're not going to put your name on it unless it has really gone through all of the hurdles.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Yes, that's correct. And we're just amazed at the quality. We know that it's very difficult around amendment time. We frequently hear that there are some issues with trying to draft amendments.

But if you could see the raw numbers that are produced by way of amendments that are requested but never called, it's absolutely astonishes me and I would encourage all of you, it's quite an eye-opening experience for me to join the office. And I have just a vast appreciation for how hard working and how talented that that office is.

SEN. KISSEL: You're absolutely correct. In fact, when I call on amendments and I don't call them on the floor of the Senate, I feel very guilty that someone has gone through all of that process and I apologize for mixing metaphors.

I think I said through the hurdles, I think I'm going to go over hurdles and through the hoops in trying to get things from beginning to end.

The fact simply that you were able to balance a practice as a partner in a law firm for 20 years and served in the Legislature, I think speaks volumes.

You have a wide range of experience. You've already said that you have a voracious appetite for work. And so I think that you're an excellent, excellent candidate for the bench.

I only feel bad that you might be faced with mandatory retirement age before you serve out a term.

And hopefully given how much you love the law and how much you've given to public service, you would be one of those folks that are trial referee or would want to work as much or more than you would as a regular Superior Court Judge.

I think that your diversity of experiences will just serve everyone in the State of Connecticut really well.

And I just, again, want to congratulate you on your appointment. I think that you're the kind of individual that would truly be a great benefit to our Judicial Branch. Thank you Mr. Gilligan.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you Senator [inaudible]. Thank you for debunking the myth that things just happened up on the fifth floor that none of us knew about. Representative Farr, I believe is next, then Representative--

REP. FARR: Congratulations on your nomination. I concur with everything that has been said. And having worked with you over the years, I believe that you're an excellent nominee.

I'm just very curious about the number of amendments that are produced and never called. Is there actually a statistic that's kept on that?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Yes, we keep statistics by attorney, individual attorney. We don't keep them by Legislature.

REP. FARR: I was going to say, that's where I was going. I wanted to see how many Kissel had. Maybe we could have some sort of incentive system to encourage people not to be doing that. We could charge each Legislator a dig out of their expense account or something. Thank you very much and I congratulate you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Serra.

REP. SERRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations. I heard you respond to the Chairman that you hadn't cracked this criminal law for 15 years. Is that correct? Did I hear that--

ROBERT GILLIGAN: That's correct. It's probably been about 15 years.

REP. SERRA: Why do I know that the fact that all criminal statutes that had happened and changes in the past 15 years, Robert Gilligan was right on top of it.

Because I was one of the gentlemen that always asked you, explain this, explain that. So I just wanted the panel to know that even though he wasn't in court for 15 years, he's been on top of all the criminal statutes and changes that have happened here in the State of Connecticut.

And from a personal standpoint, I'd like the Committee here to know that I was a freshman at the same time as Senator Kissel was a freshman. And I was taken under the wing of at that time, Representative Gilligan, from Wethersfield.

Who effectually was known in my circles as the stealth Legislator. Representative Gilligan would leave the chamber and the [inaudible] would pick up on his activities.

When he would arrive, I would turn to people who were sitting with me and say we're going to vote within the next five or ten minutes after a long debate.

And I was never wrong. The last thing that I want to tell about is his perfect timing in this business. When I was a freshman, you know, I was always worried about missing a vote.

The Representative took me down to Franklin Avenue for dinner as a major debate was going on. We finished dinner and he said we'd better get going because we'll be voting within 20 minutes.

And sure as hell, it was 20 minutes. And your honor, it's just a pleasure for me to support you. I know you'll be a big plus to the judicial system in the State of Connecticut. And my congratulations to you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, Bob. Aside from all of the other stories that people tell on you, you are one of the last people who had the high standards for decorum on the House floor in terms of being there with a jacket and tie on.

And many people, including myself, have violated that rule numerous times. But since our concern is judicial temperament, whether that is well suited for the Legislature anymore, it certainly is appropriate in the courthouses.

And I think you will bring an extraordinary sense of decorum and judicial temperament to the bench and I think that's a very good thing.

We've known you for a long time and just the way you handle a wide variety of problems as a Legislator and are a problem solver and a Legislative Commissioner is really enviable.

And so, I'm not sure if I ever said to you before privately or publicly, so I wanted to say that.

I'm sure you heard earlier that we had a series of questions for the preceding judge. And I was just curious rather than repeating the entire question, your thoughts on the whole issue of going into the hustle/bustle of the busy GA courts and making decisions on the fly that affect people's liberty and etc.

Have you thought about that, and I know you used to do a fair amount of work in the criminal courts, but this is whole different perspective and a different role, in a much busier court system, with far more complexities than had been the case in the good 'ole days, so what, if any thoughts to you have on that?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Thank you for the compliment. I mow the lawn with a tie on also [inaudible]. I've given a great deal of thought to it. I spent a great deal of time early on in my career in what was then known as Circuit Court 14 in Hartford.

It was very much as you describe. It was just a very difficult place to visit and to feel the press of humanity and how this, as a young lawyer, [inaudible] is not the best way to mete out justice.

You would have to stand in line and go see the prosecutor and try and hook up with your client that you may have never met previously.

And it strikes me as being something that I will work very hard to make sure that each person appearing in the Court if I am granted that opportunity, is treated with dignity.

Much more dignity than that process at that time. And I know there have been improvements. And if you think it's tough now, you should have seen it then.

It was an un-air conditioned building in the middle of the summer. My father at the very end of his career was fortunate to hook up with a job where he was the clerk in that court.

He died before I could finish law school so I never got a chance to see him down there, but it was quite a place. It was quite a place. And I am prepared and ready and I know what I'm in for.

And I know that I will be assigned as all the newly appointed judges, if I am appointed, to that type of assignment.

I will do my level best to make sure that despite the press of cases that each one is given a full hearing because as it said, anything less than full justice is injustice.

REP. WALKER: I'm glad to hear that, obviously. Let me just quiz you on those other specific topics as well because we do hear a lot of concerns raised by citizens and practitioners alike about at least at a minimum, perceived unfairness in the justice system.

And one of those areas, as I mentioned earlier, are crime victim's rights and the way crime victims are treated in court.

Obviously, for a long time, the courts geared in a criminal court, it's geared to ensuring the rights of the accused are honored.

I think it is a relatively recent phenomenon that specific rights have been provided to victims of crime as well.

I don't know if you've given any thought to that particular topic, but I hope you have and it would certainly be a hot topic where you'll probably soon be in a few weeks.

But aside from the defendants and the lawyers and the jurors and the court staff, will be crime victims coming into the courthouse hoping to get a fair shake.

They're hoping that people will explain the procedures to them and hoping that they will have the opportunity to weigh in where appropriate in the outcomes of these criminal cases. I wonder what thoughts you have on that topic, but I hope that you'll share them with us.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Well, my thoughts are simply that, is that those rights are constitutionally protected under [inaudible] Section 29 of the State Constitution. What is troubling is the tale that you told of last night's hearing.

Because it is my understanding, clear understanding that it is the obligation of the court to make inquiry as to whether the victims, any victims that is present in the court, he wishes to make a statement.

Beyond the litany of rights that are spelled out in the Constitution, the right to attend and to be consulted are a big part of the sentencing discussion.

There is also a duty on the part of the court to inquire whether the victim is present and wishes to make a statement upon the record or has submitted a written statement.

And in the event that there isn't a victim present, the court has a duty to inquire as to whether contact was attempted. So I'm puzzled as to how that could have happened.

It apparently may have proceeded the statutory obligation, I'm not certain. But I would certainly respect the right of the victim to be present and to make sure that all the rights that they are entitled to are explained to them.

And I understand that the Office of Victims Services does a very good job of that. So it is puzzling as to how and why those situations develop.

REP. WALKER: I'm sure that you're aware that it's not unprecedented that a prosecutor and a Defense Attorney would reach an agreement in a case and rapidly seek to have it docketed and resolved just to move the case.

And so it is conceivable that something like that could happen in a rush without the normal week or two notice of a new court date. And I think it's that kind of situation that happened in the case of the woman who testified here last night.

That all of sudden the case was docketed and disposed of and she found out after the fact when the Victim Advocate called her to tell her what happened.

And so, those things do happen and it is understandable the reasons for it. It appears to be illegal under the current laws. But I think the real question is, what's the remedy for that kind of thing?

Does it invalidate the plea, does it require a re-opener, and all of these other things. And these are interesting questions which haven't been addressed by our Appellate Court or our Supreme Court yet.

And are much more likely to be addressed for now at least, as questions of first impression by individual judges in individual courtrooms. And I just wonder what your thoughts are about that? Can there be a right without a remedy?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Well, the Constitution also requires that the legislature enact laws to implement the Constitutional Amendment. So, I would think in the first instance, it's incumbent upon the Legislature to craft remedies beyond the rights of restitution and the rights to be present, and so on.

I, it's my own personal opinion, my gut reaction is that it probably wouldn't involve the conviction or the plea, as the rights of the defendant are also spelled out and the tension between the two is an oversight, it's unfortunate or the other result is that I kind of doubt that the remedy would be to reopen the case.

REP. WALKER: I mentioned earlier, as well, this issue of another perception that may or may not be a reality, but it's clearly a perception on the part of many, and that is that the family court system is that the balance is tipped unfairly against men or husbands in divorce and child custody proceedings.

And there is a lot of concerns being brought to us recently about people who think that's the case. And as I said to the proceeding nominee, when we get complaints about judicial conduct on re-nominations, it is typically things that happened in the family court.

Have you handled family cases in the past at all? And, if so, what are your thoughts on that? And if not, what do you think, if anything could be done to respond to the concerns that have been raised by many about unfairness in the Family Court System?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: To answer the question, yes I have. I haven't again, recently. I've very studiously avoided family law, domestic dissolution of marriage matters.

The very last one I did was for a fellow Legislator that I think was about 15 years ago and I think it was the very last one I ever entertained doing.

I'm aware that there is criticism on the part of some who feel that the rights of the husband, father or not, have not been as equally protected.

I don't have much to go on there, other than anecdotal reports. I know that the interest when children are involved, the interest of the children has to be paramount in the decisions that are made.

And it's a terrible thing to have custody limited or have situations where the custodial parent is moving out of state and that coupled with the situations where the parties feel that the division of property has not been fair to them.

But I can't really say beyond the plight of trying to do justice and look at each case as carefully as one can and weigh all of the issues, the various factors.

It is my understanding that the courts function pretty well in that area. But you're absolutely right, I don't know too many, the judges that I know who really want to sign up for family court. It's a tough assignment.

REP. WALKER: Thank you and congratulations again Bob.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Thank you. Thank you Representative Lawlor. And Bob, if you are fortunate enough to be confirmed, I hope that you will lobby for a position on the Rules Committee of the Superior Court so that we can benefit from your draftsmanship there as well. I believe Representative Dyson was next.

REP. DYSON: Yes, thank you Mr. Gilligan, Sir, good to see you. I've been sitting here debating whether I should recuse myself from voting on you as a judge because we served so long together.

You know, so my opinions might be prejudiced. I'm not going to tell you for or against, but I pose a question to Mr. Calmar earlier.

I don't have to repeat it, but the issues disparity and whether you can be, or do you think judges should be proactive in terms of finding a remedy to this problem and what do they see as a potential remedy?

ROBERT GILLIGAN: I think we have to be mindful and proactive. [inaudible] referred to earlier, the most recent study and one. The findings are such that all races, a majority of all races believe that minorities are not treated fairly by the justice system.

Then it's either the case or there is a very bad public relations problem. So, and I'm trying to give thought as to what a judge might do. In the first instance, it seems that inquiry could be made as to whether all the alternatives have been explored.

I'm talking primarily in the criminal justice context. As you're aware, there are a good number of pretrial diversion programs that are available to an accused, in the first instance.

We all know that public defenders are saddled with very heavy caseloads. As one I would want to be assured that despite this heavy caseload, the opportunities to explore those pretrial diversionary programs have been reviewed with the defendant.

If there is disparity in the system, it's likely to be manifested in either the bail system where persons who don't have the means for, ineligible for bail are not given the opportunity to be free to assist with their defense.

It's likely that if it is present, it also might raise itself in the jury selection process. Thirdly, people without means, poor people are almost certain to be represented by a public defender.

And whether we have committed enough public resources to staffing that defense effort is area that I think would be worthy of examination.

I believe that the judicial department is concerned because if anyone in our midst believes that the system is unfair, it damages all of us as far as respect for law in a civilized society.

So as to how proactive an individual judge can be, in an individual setting, I get to learn from experience, but I will certainly keep that in mind, when and if I am given that opportunity.

REP. DYSON: With all sincerity, I appreciate your comments. I trust you as a person. I think you'll make a wonderful judge. And I've enjoyed the years, man.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Doyle.

REP. DOYLE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to welcome my constituent and Attorney Robert Gilligan from Wethersfield.

Many of us on the Committee have served him well, either some of us, the more experienced folk in the Legislature and others, as our LCL Commissioner.

But as his application displays he certainly has a diverse and experienced background, a nice broad background.

And I think that it's clear that Bob's intellect is great as evidenced by the many of us, some of us that served with him in the Legislature.

Others of us have benefited from his time as our LCL Commissioner. And I will just submit his testimony today was very sincere, and thoughtful which we appreciate.

I also have come to appreciate his humility despite his many accomplishments through the years in terms of Legislature and the like.

He's always come across to me and others as a humble person and very down to earth. And also, as he did mention, I can attest to the Gilligan work ethnic.

I happen to know some of his siblings, and I think it must come from their father, because Bob really does have an unbelievable work ethic.

I can call him at any time on weekends, on Saturday nights, he's in his office at his desk. So I think the State of Connecticut will benefit from his work ethic on the bench.

I don't think we have to worry about any concerns about Bob not putting in ample time in his new challenge and job for all of us. He is also very well respected throughout the town of Wethersfield.

He volunteers, I think he forgot a few things. Because I know he was legal counsel or voluntary counsel to the Unica Group [inaudible] in Rocky Hill which does a lot of volunteer work throughout our community.

That wasn't on his resume and he's giving countless hours to them. And I'll just point out that I did find one blemish on his record that I think many on the Committee will appreciate.

The fact that Bob decided to retire in 1995 resulted in me coming up here and I think that may be held against him. The fact that he retired, I came up here.

On a more serious note, I think of Bob as a good friend. But more importantly than that, I think he will make a wonderful addition to our bench because of his intellect, work ethic and his humility.

And I know his temperament on the bench which is one of my big concerns will be well addressed. And I have no concerns about Bob having the necessary temperament on the bench and I thank Bob for agreeing to serve our state and I wish him well on the bench. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, first, congratulations on your nomination. I couldn't think of a better choice.

There are very people that would have a better demeanor as a judge as you are someone who is fair, you're obviously very competent. I don't think I've ever seen you lose your temper or even come close.

And I've gotten to know you the last 12 years, more so through my wife, who I consider to be one of the other good Democrats in Connecticut and she also, I know, thinks very highly of you. And I just wanted to wish you all the best and congratulate you.

ROBERT GILLIGAN: Thank you, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any questions for Mr. Gilligan? If not, thank you very much for your time. Next is attorney Maria Araujo-Kahn. I apologize if I brutalized that name.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please be seated. Could you provide us with the correct pronunciation of your name?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, Maria Araujo-Kahn.

SEN. MCDONALD: Welcome.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you. Good afternoon Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor and Members of the Committee. My name is Maria Araujo-Kahn. And it is an honor and a privilege to have been nominated and to appear before this Committee.

I am grateful to Governor Rell for this tremendous opportunity. Serving as a Superior Court Judge would be a challenging and rewarding way to continue my career in public service.

By way of background, I was born in Angola, Southwest Africa. Because of the Civil War in Angola, I immigrated with my family to the United States when I was ten-and-a-half years old.

We initially moved to Waterbury, Connecticut. While I did not speak English, I was blessed with great educational experiences and strong family support.

The educational and employment opportunities that I received have made it possible for me to be here today and are proof that this is a great country.

I graduated from the Philadelphia High School for Girls in 1982 and my family relocated back to Connecticut. I attended Southern Connecticut State University until my sophomore year and then transferred to New York University.

While attending Southern, I worked full-time at the Meridian Wallingford Hospital Microbiology Laboratory, which is now known as Midstate Medical Center.

I graduated from NYU in 1986 with honors. Following college, I went directly to Fordham Law School, where I was the first recipient of the Noreen E. McNamara Memorial Scholarship, an academic and needs scholarship.

I graduated from Fordham Law School in 1989. While in Law School I worked at the Connecticut Legal Services, the Law Firm of Cummings and Lockwood, in the Appellate Division of the Chief's States Attorney's Office.

After law school I had the privilege to serve as a law clerk to the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey, United States District Courts judge. It was a tremendous experience. Not only in terms of furthering my legal training but also because it gave me the opportunity [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to Tape 2A.]

--particular party. From that experience I gained tremendous and admiration for Judge Dorsey and the role of the Judge.

When my courtship ended in 1991, I was appointed as a Deputy Assistant Public Defender where I represented hundreds of clients in Hartford and Plainville Juvenile Courts.

I received excellent training from the State Public Defenders Office. And I remained in that position until the birth of my first daughter in December of 1992.

During that time, I also taught legal writing in [inaudible] court to first year law students and UConn Law School. Both of those experiences were [inaudible] rewarding.

From September of 1993 to July of 1997 I worked as a staff attorney at the State of Connecticut Office of Protection for Persons with Disabilities.

In that capacity, I handled all aspects of civil rights litigation on behalf of individuals with disabilities before administrative officers, state superior and appellate courts and the federal courts.

Among the cases that I am most proud to have participated in were a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Connecticut Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing to secure interpreter services for hospital visits.

I also participated in a successful appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court to obtain appeal rights for clients of the Bureau of Rehabilitation Services.

While at OPA, I also had the opportunity to work on legislative proposals and on one occasion, to testify before this Committee on a Joint OPA and Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services proposed bill.

In 1997 I was fortunate to be appointed as an Assistant United States Attorney where I have been for the past eight-and-a-half years.

I started out as an assistant in the civil division prosecuting civil and criminal healthcare fraud cases, including the then second largest, nationwide healthcare fraud case against the Medicare contractor.

In 2000, I transferred to the criminal division of the United States Attorney's Office where I prosecuted white-collar cases ranging from theft of intellectual property, identify theft, to bankruptcy fraud, mail, wire, tax fraud and bank fraud cases.

In many of the cases I was assigned to required me to direct large, complex investigations on joint federal and state agencies.

In 2004, U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor appointed me as the lead Computer Crimes Coordinator and Crimes Against Children Coordinator for the District.

In these roles I was responsible for reviewing and receiving all intake matters for all computer crimes and crimes against children.

I also had the opportunity to direct investigations and prosecute cases such as computer hacking, Internet piracy, computer fishing, possession, distribution and production of child pornography.

Throughout my career at the U.S. Attorney's Office I had the opportunity to appear and have appeared on multiple occasions before Grand juries and the District Court for arraignment, detention hearings, pretrial motions, trials and sentencings. Federal prosecutors are in a position to make decisions that affect people's lives.

Whether pursuing an investigation or making a charging decision, a prosecutor should have an understanding of the impact that those decisions will have, not only on the defendant and the defendant's family, but also the victim, the victim's family and the community in general.

It is an awesome responsibility and one that should not be taken lightly. It is this part of my current position that I believe has prepared me well for the decisions that a judge would have to make on a regular basis.

On a personal note, my husband Ben, who is a physician in private practice and is here today with me, are blessed with two wonderful daughters. Sarah, who is 13 years old and Emma, who is 10 years old.

We reside in Cheshire and have support of families near by. I was raised by hardworking Portuguese immigrant parents who stressed education and hard work.

I believe that my diverse legal and ethnic background, along with my life experiences, has given me a deep understanding of life's challenges. It is human perspective that will continue to guide my decisions and judgment.

If confirmed, I assure you that I will continue, that I assure you that I will approach my role with humility, understanding the awesome responsibility that comes with being a judge. I will strive every day to be fair and impartial.

To ensure that all that enter the courtroom will be treated with dignity and respect. I thank you for your time and I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. I've been an admirer of your work and I guess for better or for worse, have had an opportunity to read your name in a number of newspaper articles over the years and it's a pleasure to meet you as it is with the distance between us.

But, I want to thank you for your service in the U.S. Attorneys Office. And correctly, you have a great reputation as a prosecutor and I'm thrilled that you were willing to put that part of your life behind you and perhaps open a new door as a Judge of the Superior Court.

Let me ask you, and frankly, it is just something that you're disadvantaged by as a result of the great experience you have in the federal system, is that, obviously in a state court system, whether on the civil side, the criminal side, the juvenile side, it's a very different experience than you are familiar with in the federal court system.

So let me first start by saying, how would you, what would you anticipate to be your greatest challenges migrating over into a state system in which you are not terribly familiar?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes. I do believe that it will be a challenge to readjust back to the state system. However, I was fortunate to have spent four years doing civil litigation when I was at PNA.

Which was, I would say, almost exclusively in the state court system. I appeared before Probate Court. I appeared in Superior court. I argued cases before the Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court.

So I have been to short calendar and to motion hearings. Of course, that was approximately nine or ten or years ago. Prior to that, when I served as a public defender in the state system, I had, I feel I have a good understanding of how the state system works, having been in it before.

And I think that I could readjust back to the state system rather quickly.

SEN. MCDONALD: In anticipation of that, have you undertaken any homework activities, if you will, in preparation for that?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, I have. Prior to, at the time that I obtained an application for, to submit to the Judicial Selection Commission, I had the opportunity to spend part of the day observing Judge Jongbloed who had been the Chief of the Criminal Division in our office.

And I had the opportunity to observe her in a GA court. I took some time off and went and sat for a day. In addition, more recently, I've been to the state system court in Middletown.

And I have been to other state courts to try to observe different proceedings. I have also looked over the Connecticut Practice Book and other sections to try to familiarize myself once again with the state statutes.

I do think many of the skills that I have as a federal prosecutor in trying cases will be transferable to the state system.

SEN. MCDONALD: Tell me a little bit, obviously your questionnaire indicates that a 100% of your experience in the last few years has been jury trials.

Can you tell me how many jury trials you've undertaken in the last five years?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: In the last five years, I have had four jury trials. Two were healthcare fraud cases, very large, each lasting more than two weeks.

Each trial was longer than two weeks. And then I also tried two employment worker compensation fraud cases. They were mail and wire fraud cases. Again, each one of those cases lasting approximately two weeks. Prior to that, I had trials as well.

SEN. MCDONALD: And at least on the criminal side of your experience in the U.S. Attorney's Office, can you describe for me the volume that your docket, what kind of caseload would you handle?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: In the federal system, my caseload is rather large. Not only because I handle the intake, recently of computer crimes and crimes against children, but I also have my own caseload.

And I would tell you that in anticipation of assuming and hoping that I may be confirmed, in anticipation of transferring my cases, I can tell you that I carry currently a caseload of 53 cases and they are at various stages.

Some are initial investigations stage. Some have been charged by indictment and are awaiting trial. So I carry quite a large caseload at the U.S. Attorney's Office.

SEN. MCDONALD: Tell me that any other types of contributions you've made to the advancement of the law in any kind of professional associations or Bar association's type activities.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I'm a member of the Connecticut Bar Association. I have on three occasions conducted programs with the Connecticut Bar Association by invitation.

One was approximately in 2004 relating to the use of electronic equipment doing basically paperless trials using the program called Sanctions.

And the last two trials that I did were trials where we used a courtroom presentation system where all of the evidence is scanned in and presented and it is presented to the jury electronically on screens.

And I did a presentation for the Connecticut Bar Association about that software and how we used it in trials.

I also recently did a program for the Federal Practice Section in the Intellectual Property Section on computer crimes affecting intellectual property along with the gentleman who is the head of the computer crime squad at the FBI at the time.

SEN. MCDONALD: And, did you say that you were involved with the Connecticut Legal Services as well.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, I was. I was, after my first year at law school I worked as a summer intern at Connecticut Legal Services in the Meriden office. And I did family law and housing. And I was basically an intern at that point.

After my graduation from law school and while I was working at PNA, I was asked to be a Board member for Connecticut Legal Services and I served as a Board member for Connecticut Legal Services.

SEN. MCDONALD: For how long?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I was on the Board for approximately, I would say three to four years. I'd have to look at my resume for--

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other non-legal related community activities for which you were involved?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes. Yes I am. I am currently on the Board of Trustees of the Congregation that my husband and I are members of, Congregation Mishael Israel. I have been on the Board since approximately 2002 and I serve as Chair of the Religious School, co-chair of the Religious Committee for that the Synagogue which basically we run a school with one principal and 23 teachers, paid positions.

It's a religious school that is operated twice a week. In addition to that I am now currently the assistant treasurer at the Synagogue and I am on the Board of Trustees.

In addition to that, when my daughter was in, my oldest daughter was in a daycare center in Meriden I was on the Board of the Parent/Child Daycare Center.

So I have always been active in the community, both in charitable organizations. My youngest daughter was a member of the Girl Scouts and I participated in that.

I volunteer at my children's school as often as I possibly can on things such as career day, ice cream socials. So I remain very active in my community.

SEN. MCDONALD: And professionally in the U.S. Attorney's Office, I know that, I guess like any office there's a lot of competition among colleagues. Have you been recognized in any way within the Department of Justice for your work in DOJ?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, I have. I have received, I have been fortunate to have received what the Department calls the, it's an annual award for outstanding achievement given to assistants who perform at a certain level.

And I have always received that award every year that I have been at the U.S. Attorney's Office. I've also been recognized by agencies that we work with and the office has been really terrific in recognizing the work of the assistants.

And I have been very fortunate to, I have had my work recognized every year by receiving that award.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, do you want to go--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible, microphone not on] thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Do you go by Attorney Kahn or I'll mispronounce your middle name. Is it Araujo?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: The common pronunciation is A-rew-jo, but it's really pronounced a-da-rew-jo. It's very difficult.

SEN. KISSEL: But when they bring you out in the GA, are they going to say, all rise, Attorney Araujo-Kahn?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I think it's fair to say that most attorneys know me--

SEN. KISSEL: --as Araujo-Kahn

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: That would be fine. Most attorneys know me as Kahn, Attorney Kahn. I have to, I was married, I married my husband after my second year of law school and my law school diploma and all of my initial diplomas have my name hyphenated.

I used my maiden name as a middle name. And in the federal court system, all of the court notices that go out for hearings, my full name is used. Maria Araujo-Kahn. But most attorneys will refer to me as Maria Kahn and I won't always answer the phone as Maria Kahn.

SEN. KISSEL: Well, what do you prefer?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Either one is quite fine. Maria Kahn is fine.

SEN. KISSEL: Counselor, thank you so much. It's delightful to see you again. I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to visit me in my office a couple of weeks ago.

I know that we have a mutual friend in Attorney Caroline Accary who works with you in the U.S. Attorney's Office. She has spoken very, very highly of you, as well as her husband, Attorney Matthew Caleva who actually testified before this Committee on unrelated Connecticut Bar Association bills regarding real estate matters just a couple of weeks ago.

I just think that the breadth of your experience albeit heavily tilted toward the federal system but I just think that it is extremely well-balanced. I really see you as a tremendous asset to our judicial system.

Especially in areas that are really coming to the fore. Areas regarding children's matters, sexual abuse, sexual predators who utilize the Internet.

Indeed Judge Lavery who we have in our audience really has a passion regarding overhauling how we treat juveniles in the State of Connecticut. He's been out there championing additional resources for the judicial branch.

And given the wealth of knowledge that you have in prosecuting these matters, and helping children throughout Connecticut, on the federal level, I am sure that the folks in charge of the judicial branch will have some keen ideas as to where you'll be the greatest asset.

While we have you here though, and given that great amount of expertise, I'm going to ask you a completely unrelated question. But we were chatting about it during screening on Saturday.

And since you do have this experience and knowledge that I certainly don't have. We were debating the merits of the ability of [inaudible].

We have a do-not-call list in Connecticut and these various proposals as to how we can sort of reign in the E-mails that come pouring into our state, many of which are predatory towards children.

And how do we as a Legislature sort of protect our young people from these predators while at the same, not run afoul of First Amendment rights, and constitutional protections against inhibiting interstate commerce.

Do you think that we as a Legislature have the ability, legally, to create a do-not-E-mail list? Or, based upon your experiences in that field, that there would be some perhaps insurmountable roadblocks which would mean that we have to defer to the federal government?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Well, certainly because the Internet is worldwide, it impacts other areas besides Connecticut. So there may be implications about regulating conduct basically is initiating outside of Connecticut.

That's a tough question. I think there is definitely a balancing act between First Amendment rights and protection of our children and protection of, even citizens from unsolicited E-mail.

I can tell you that in the federal system, there is an Anti-spam Act which was recently passed and that may be something that the Legislature can look to as, to go by, for a lack of a better word.

And whether there have been any challenges to that statute, I'm not sure. I am aware that there are challenges to other statutes that protect, that were set up to prevent the dissemination of obscenity through the Internet and elsewhere.

And there have been challenges, constitutional challenges, to that. So it is a difficult question. It is one that does require a balance between those two interests.

But I do think that there may be some models, if you will, in other states. In the federal system, such as in the Anti-spam Act, that the Legislature can look to.

SEN. KISSEL: Well, without a doubt, I can clearly understand why your coworkers and your friends speak so highly of you. Your temperament, your demeanor, is just extraordinary.

I actually also believe that while every candidate before us that's a new appointee, nominee rather, to the bench is unique. Certainly I see in your background and your resume and your experiences someone who really will bring a skill set that is not traditional.

And having sat on this Committee for 12 years and seeing the nominees. And traditionally you have fairly standard State's Attorneys, you have others who have been in private practice.

And you seem to meld a lot of those different things and in different areas that we don't often see and so I really think that you're going to be quite an asset to the judicial branch.

And again, congratulations. It's a pleasure seeing you here this afternoon.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you, thank you Senator.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I applied in January of 2004. I was approved in July, I believe it was July of 2004.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Approximately eight weeks ago or so, I was contacted by the Governor's Office and I was asked, I believe it was on a Friday, would I be able to come in on a Tuesday to meet with the Governor.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: And, of course I did. And it was a pleasure to meet with the Governor. Again, I was told that it was an opportunity for her to meet with me to look over my materials to access me as a candidate for judicial office.

I was given no commitment. In fact I was told that decisions would be made at some point in the future, but that no indication as to specific timing.

And I was very, very delighted to have received a phone call thereafter in my home from the Governor indicating that she was going to nominate me. And I was very grateful to her for that.

SEN. MCDONALD: How long was it between the time of your interview and your selection or nomination by the Governor.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I'm sorry, how long was--

SEN. MCDONALD: From the time that you met her and discussed your potential nomination to the time you received a phone call.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I would say about six to eight weeks, in that time frame.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions? Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you, it's good to see you. I posed a question to Mr. Calmar and indicated then that I was really talking to everyone. And I'd be interested in your response to that. And you just state before you respond to that, I looked at the information that has been provided.

And I'm somewhat put at ease by virtue of your participation in the PD Office and protection and advocacy.

And I make the assumption that both of those are opportunities to work in those offices afford you an opportunity to understand some of the issues that I've been talking about in relationship to disparity.

But nonetheless, it's a question that I feel I must put to every one and so I am putting that same question to you as to whether or not on the issue of disparity do you feel that judicial should be proactive in terms of trying to find remedy to the problems that we are confronted with, as is so pointed out by that report on disparity. So I'd be interested in your response to that.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, thank you. I have and am familiar with the report on disparity, the Commission's report. And in addition, I would echo what my fellow nominees have stated.

I would tell you that I do think that there is room for judges to be proactive. I certainly as a judge in a courtroom not to permit either a misperception or to, as in areas such as jury selection, or any other aspect of the process to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

I can tell you, that I, if I were confirmed as a judge, would treat everyone the same way. I would treat everyone fairly, with dignity and respect, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other criteria.

And I think that would be my obligation as a judge to do so and to be as proactive as I could be within the system.

REP. DYSON: I will follow with just one additional question. I'll let this be my last. And here's the question to relate an experience that we had last evening in which this young lady was really traumatized by this experience that she had had.

And that somehow a decision was made, a deal made, or decision rendered and she was not informed. And then the following speaker came up and kind of lamented about how could this have happened? And my response to her was that it was easy.

It was easy in that, I pointed out that today we were going to be looking at some new nominees coming in who are probably unfamiliar with how the system works and we might have had a prosecutor who copped a deal in front of a judge.

On the first day, and the judge would have considering all of the facts would have said, okay fine, you work this out, done. Not mindful that there is some need to make the defendant aware of their right to know and it has happened.

In the situation last night [inaudible] but it does happen. And so what that would require, it would require a judge to search out every avenue in terms of what the process is to make sure that nothing is being overlooked.

Never mind someone copping a deal in front of them. And I think it is the prosecutor's job to cop a deal, but it is the judge's job to make sure that all factors have been considered.

And I just use the example of last night to point out how easily injustice can take place by virtue of the expediency of the moment to get something resolved.

And I just wanted, it's not a question, it's kind of a take note, be prepared, watch out, it's how injustice happens. It's not intended, but because it is accidental doesn't make it any less.

But I wish you well and as I said before, based upon what your experiences have been, I feel relatively comfortable that you have an understanding as to what many of the issues are as it relates to disparity. Good luck to you.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you, thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Let me just follow up on a question from Representative Dyson and it again goes back to the difference between the federal court system and the state court system.

And just the reality is, that it's just a lot more organized, is the word that I'm going to use in the federal court system.

And in the state court system, there is, the files are piled high, the people are running around, there is a lot ambient noise and a lot of [inaudible] going on in the courtroom not true in federal courts.

And to Representative Dyson's question, you say that you, and I don't doubt you, but you say that you will treat everybody fairly and evenly and equitably before you.

How do you do that when chaos is around you? And how do you, when you have to move a docket, how do you put the brakes on that without completely bringing the system to a halt to ensure that you're fulfilling your pledge to Representative Dyson?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I understand and having been in the state court system I do know what numbers are like. I used to be handed 30 files as a public defender going to represent the clients that day.

There were times when I barely had a chance to speak with a client. And those are just the pressures of the state court system. I am aware of that.

And I think it's a balance. I think that I'm also realistic. I know that practically the volume in the state court system is a lot larger and cases do have to move.

But I think that there is a way to do it and I have, I hopefully will model myself after judges that I have been fortunate to observe who are able to draw that balance very well.

With respect to victim's rights, I can tell you that in the federal system, we're catching up to the state system in that the Justice For All Act was just passed.

Which requires the government attorneys to give notice to victims of proceedings and the victims are afforded certain rights which they've always had.

But we are required to ensure that we give notice and the court, the judges will ask us if we have given notice to victims.

So in the federal system under the Justice for All Act, if a victim has not received notice of a proceeding and opposes the resolution, they have a right to petition the court to reopen that matter.

So we've received training on that as well, and it will be challenging but I'm looking forward to that challenge.

And I think that I can hopefully strike a balance and hopefully if I were confirmed, eight years from now I would, hopefully you would receive reports that I've been able to do that job well.

SEN. MCDONALD: And just one other question, taking yourself again out of your frame of reference in the federal court system.

And with no reference to Judge Lavery who is sitting in the audience, is there a judge in the Connecticut Superior, Connecticut court system that you would consider to be a role model in fulfilling the obligations and duties you've just enunciated?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, I am sure that there are many judges and I can only speak to those that I've been fortunate to know.

And obviously, some of them have come from my office, Judge Jongbloed, Judge Dooley, I hear is doing incredibly well where she is sitting and so I hope to model myself after judges like Judge Jongbloed and Judy Dooley in the state system.

And certainly I've had wonderful role models in the federal system--

SEN. MCDONALD: [Inaudible]. Thank you Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: Thank you and good afternoon Judge Araujo-Kahn. I am sorry, Araujo-Kahn. You indicated that you came her as an immigrant. How old did you say you were?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I was ten-and-a-half years old. I turned 11 in August and I arrived in March of 1975.

REP. FARR: So you've been in this country for about 30 years now?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: That's correct.

REP. FARR: You've packed an awful lot into 30 years, I've got to tell you. I was wondering when you ever sleep, based on some of the background that you've had here.

But I was most impressed by the fact that you took time to sit in on, to visit some courts. I assume that you did this after you, after your nomination came up?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Actually I did it before and after. But I did it before I wanted to go back. I had been in the state system but I wanted to spend sometime and see what it was like again.

REP. FARR: What sort of courts did you see?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I believe at the time it was New London and I believe it was [inaudible].

REP. FARR: Did you sit in an arraignment day, the busiest day that--

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: It was arraignment day, on one day. I don't recall--

REP. FARR: I think that's just a reflection on you taking this so seriously that you would go and go the extra mile and find out exactly what you were getting into.

I know that when I first got elected, got appointed to the Judiciary Committee, Judge Wallenberg invited members to come over there and I took him up on it.

And despite the fact that I had been in court hundreds of times, sitting and representing individuals, he had me sit with my back to the wall next to the bench and view the court from the Judge's point of view.

You sit there all morning on arraignments when I didn't have a client that I was representing and it was really a different perspective.

It was a fascinating experience to see what he had to decide on in terms of the information that was presented to him and how he had to make those decisions.

And so I think it is a great experience for you and it reflects very well on you to take the time to do that before you even considered taking this position. So congratulations on your nomination.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any other questions? All right, Representative Stone.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your nomination. I'm interested in your service as a public defender. I think Representative Dyson also brought that up. What GA were you--

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: My primary office was in the Hartford Juvenile Court on Park Street. And I would spend typically two days in Plainville, or I should say one-and-a-half days.

Tuesday was the day when all the cases would be heard in court in Plainville and so I would go to Plainville and basically I was the only public defender at that time.

And I would also spend a half a day there on Thursday for pretrial dispositions. You basically meet with the prosecutors and try to resolve--

REP. STONE: So your public defender work, and I'm sorry, I may have stepped out, but your public defender work primarily focused on juvenile matters, is that fair to say?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: That is correct.

REP. STONE: And in your role as the with the U.S. Attorney's Office, if you know, because I quite frankly, I thought you had done some other public defender work.

But, if you know, what's the difference between the volume of cases handled at the state court level for a public defender versus the volume of cases that go through the criminal process within the federal system? Any thoughts on that?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I don't speak for the federal public defenders but I have heard them say that they have quite a large caseload. I know they work very hard. They are excellent attorneys.

And I know that there caseload is quite large. And their numbers in comparison to the federal prosecutors is relatively smaller. Having said that, I do believe, and this is only based on my experiences.

Obviously I don't know first hand and I certainly don't know what the current statistics are. But I would think that state public defenders caseloads are significantly larger.

REP. STONE: Now in your role as the public defender in the Juvenile Court System, I would take it that there it calls for a lot of court time.

And I know that in the juvenile system I think they handle each case individually in a closed session of the court, correct. And you're there not only as public defender, but as an Officer of the Court.

Does there ever come a time where perhaps one of the defendants, juvenile defendants Constitutional rights were somehow being adversely impacted, that you had an opportunity or an obligation to speak up to the court to identify those situations?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I, as a public defender--

REP. STONE: As a public defender, right.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: --certainly, and I saw that as my obligation. And if I saw a Constitutional right being violated I would speak up. I do recall that I filed a motion to suppress evidence in one case which I think was unusual in a juvenile system at that time. So I certainly, if I saw that--

REP. STONE: Does that obligation extend to just the cases that you're handling or would that obligation extend to any situation where you might see that there is some constitutional issues involved? For a particular defendant, not one that is represented by you?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I think that would depend on the facts of each case. I would hope that individual would be represented by Counsel who can speak up.

But certainly, when I was in Juvenile Court, pretty much, given our caseload [inaudible].

We did not [inaudible] counsel and when one of us was in the courtroom handling a particular matter, the other public defender was generally outside speaking with clients or getting ready for the next matter. So there wasn't a lot of overlap.

REP. STONE: Would it be fair to say that as a public defender, being in the courtroom as these proceedings are going on, that you'd certainly have had the opportunity.

I'm talking more hypothetically, would you have had the opportunity and perhaps the obligation, but at least the opportunity, that if there was a constitutional issue raised about one or more defendants constitutional rights, you'd have the opportunity to either address that, speak to the court, either in open session or not. But have the opportunity to address that issue to the court?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Well, again, it would depend on the particular facts of the case but I certainly think that if, as a public defender, and you're in the courtroom and you're observing something that is troubling in terms of constitutional rights, I would like to think that there would be a way to address that.

REP. STONE: And I don't mean necessarily, it's just important to have the opportunity, whether or not in a particular case, you would have done something is a separate issue. And at least the opportunity would have been there.

And then you can judge based upon your knowledge of the law and your expertise in your position as public defender, whether you act to make those concerns known. But at least the opportunity would have been there. Would that be a fair statement?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Again, it would depend on the circumstances, who was representing the individual.

REP. STONE: Let's assume they were un-represented.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Assuming they were un-represented, obviously that would eliminate another issue of contact with a represented party. Again, it would depend on the circumstances and the manner in which that could be addressed with the court.

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you for our candor. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there any questions? Good afternoon and congratulations. I just had a couple of questions.

I think you've already sort of touched on the crime/victim topic. And I'm just curious, based on the new federal law, what was the name of the new federal law?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: The Justice for All Act.

REP. LAWLOR: And there are remedies provided for victims that feel that they didn't have the opportunity to address the court, or whatever. And how does that exactly work?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes. The victim's rights were always there, but under the new statute they were provisions which provide remedies when those rights are violated.

Where the victim feels those rights are violated and that would involve petitioning the court to reopen a matter [inaudible] for example draw a guilty plea if the victim had not been notified of the plea hearing for example, just by way of example.

REP. LAWLOR: Does the victim have standing to assert that right, is that how that works?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: And is there a time limit on the amount of time--

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I don't recall, off the top of my head, what the time restraints, my hope is that I would never have to deal with that issue and that always victim's rights would addressed in my cases.

So I don't know the answer to that question in terms of the time limitations, if any, on seeking a remedy.

REP. LAWLOR: So it would be optional to the judge whether in essence they take the plea or they take the finding of guilty or whatever it happened to be.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I believe that the decision is within the discretion of the court, but the court has the authority to reopen a case.

REP. LAWLOR: I am sure you understand that obviously, in some ways, we make fun of federal court because there are so few cases and they are so well documented.

When they finally arrive in the courtroom and there is a lot of luxury of time and resources to deal with them compared to the state system at least.

But can you understand the crusher cases you're likely to confront in the GA court? You saw it firsthand as a public defender, but I guess it is even more so now.

With the sheer volume of cases, it is not unlikely that a victim could get lost in the shuffle and might show up in your courtroom someday and say, hey you know, all of these things happened.

No one ever talked to me. I don't understand why, and if I had known I would have said this or that. You may be asked ultimately to vacate a plea or do something along those lines.

Would you feel comfortable doing that? If you were persuaded that the client's/victim's rights had been in effect ignored by someone or deliberately overlooked?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yeah, I think that in the federal system that there is also provisions for deliberate failure to notify versus good faith efforts.

But then it would depend on the circumstances in the case. But certainly if there were a mechanism and the statutory provision or rule to permit that under egregious circumstances, absolutely.

REP. LAWLOR: You understand that aside from the statutory rights, that are contained on our statute books, there is also constitutional rights which have yet to be evaluated in the Supreme Court in terms of, what the remedies might be for a violation of those rights.

But they are there as well and part of the reason that they were put there was so that when push comes to shove the victim would be able to assert a constitutional right. On a par, it seems with the defendant's rights.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Yes, yes, absolutely, I do understand that it is a constitutional right in the statutes.

REP. LAWLOR: Now I think that you heard earlier some questions that I had asked about the family side. I'm not sure if you have any experience with that.

Have you done any divorce-type situations or custody or termination of parental rights?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: The last time I worked on any family type matters was when I was an intern at Connecticut Legal Services.

And I did work to assist the attorneys in working on some cases of battered women who were seeking protective orders and divorces. But that was the last time that I worked on family matters.

REP. LAWLOR: So I'm sure you understand that that is where the nerves are the rawest, the most raw, in that court. And oftentimes, if there are complaints about a judge it comes from cases like that.

And it seems as though that a [inaudible] a perception of unfairness. Do you have any thoughts about that? The perception of unfairness to men and fathers in the family courtroom?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I understand that, and I would like to think that I would be sensitive to that. And sensitive to any such perceptions and proceed in a way that would minimize that and then every party would feel as is they were treated fairly.

And had, whether or not they were pleased with the resolution of the case, at least they felt that they had an opportunity to be heard and that the process was fair and impartial.

REP. LAWLOR: I apologize that I wasn't here when you gave your opening statement. What type of cases did you handle in the U.S. Attorney's Office?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: More recently I'm the Computer Crimes and Crimes Against Children Coordinator for the District. So a large percentage of my cases involve computer crimes such as Internet piracy, computer fishing and hacking.

And also crimes against children, possession distribution, production of pornography, travelers, individuals who travel and use interstate facilities in order to engage in sexual conduct with minors.

I have also handled quite a large number of white-collar mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, tax fraud cases, bankruptcy cases. I really have been a generalist as a criminal prosecutor and so I handle a variety of white-collar cases.

REP. LAWLOR: As a public defender or as a prosecutor, have you handled juvenile cases?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: I did as a state public defender for approximately two years in Hartford and Plainville in Juvenile Courts.

REP. LAWLOR: In federal court, what's the age, at what point do you become an adult in federal court, do you know what the age is?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: We, you know it's, I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. Most of the cases in the computer hacking cases, generally when we have someone who is under 18, we refer them to the state system if there are [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to 2B.]

REP. LAWLOR: Could someone close the door over there, Craig? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: So all of the individuals I prosecuted have been older than 18. And generally speaking, if someone is under 18 we look for other ways to address the crime, if you will.

REP. LAWLOR: And finally, I didn't ask this question of Attorney Gilligan because we all know him and we work with him all the time, I think we understand a little bit the process there.

I'm just very curious about the process that brought you to this seat today. When, Oh, Senator McDonald asked you? Okay, I'll. He asked how long since, okay. Fine. Thank you very much and congratulations again.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask a question since you worked in the juvenile court system.

Part of the things that we've heard about is possibly separating the juvenile court system, separating juvenile justice away from DCF and making it it's own entity. What do you think about that, and how would you, how do you think that would affect the court system?

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: When I worked in the juvenile courts I dealt, I worked exclusively on the delinquency side. I did not work on the family side dealing with families with special needs.

Although there was some overlap, obviously. I've not been in juvenile court, in, I guess, 13 years. So it's hard for me to comment in an educated way about the proposal to separate the two.

REP. LAWLOR: Are there any other questions? If not, thanks very much, and congratulations again.

MARIA ARAUJO-KAHN: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Next is Attorney Maureen M. Keegan of Cheshire.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Attorney Keegan, do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Before you start, congratulations. The Members of the Committee know you very well and we're familiar with your qualifications as it relates to your many appearances before us and meetings with us over the last three years.

So we're delighted to see you here and needless to say. But I'm sure there's much more about yourself that we're not aware of, so please feel free to fill us in.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Good afternoon Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, Representative Spallone and all the Members of the Judiciary Committee.

I'm deeply honored to be sitting before you today as a nominee for Superior Court Judgeship.

I am also deeply grateful to Governor Rell for my nomination for this opportunity to continue to serve the people of the State of Connecticut, but in a new capacity.

I was born and raised in Greenwich, Connecticut and I come from a family this is dedicated to public service. My father was a police officer and my mother was a nurse.

I attended the public schools in Greenwich and in 1983 I graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Richmond with a double major in Spanish and sociology.

After graduation, I worked for two years as a paralegal in a Greenwich law firm, then known as Dua and Holland. In 1985, I entered the University of Connecticut School of Law.

And while attending the University of Connecticut School of Law, I had the opportunity to work in the Attorney General's Office and the United States Attorney's Office.

I was also lucky to begin a summer job with the Division of Criminal Justice. And that's an employment that has lasted to this day.

I graduated from UConn in 1988 and began a one-year clerkship at the Connecticut Appellate Court. It was my great privilege to serve as law clerk for the late, great honorable John J. Daly.

I returned to the Waterbury State's Attorney's Office in 1989 as a full-time prosecutor. In the more than 15 years I worked as a trial attorney in Waterbury, I handled every type of criminal matter.

I tried cases from speeding to capital felony before judges and juries. I met with countless victims and their families. I negotiated resolutions of cases that were fair to all of the parties.

And I appeared before the many boards that criminal cases require. For eight years I supervised the Part A office, the felony office of the Waterbury State's Attorney's Office.

And for a short time I served in the capacity of the State's Attorney for the Waterbury Judicial District.

In 2004 I became an Executive Assistant State's Attorney. And I took on administrative and legislative duties for the Division of Criminal Justice.

This position has afforded me the opportunity to represent the division on several legislative commissions as well as before this and other Committees of the Legislature.

My implementation of the Case Presentation Unit for the prosecutors of the State of Connecticut is a direct result of my experience in trial work and in training.

Since 2001 I have devoted a significant amount of personal time to the training of prosecutors. I have taught numerous courses at the National Advocacy Center run by the National District Attorney's Office.

As well as for the National College of District Attorneys. I have taught prosecutors here in the State of Connecticut. I have appeared before the Waterbury Bar Association, instructing defense attorneys on criminal practice in Waterbury.

I'm a certified instructor at the POST Academy where my last two years as an Executive Assistant to the State's Attorney, I've taught case preparation for municipal police officers that are training to become police officers.

I have served as a mentor to law students at the University of Connecticut School of Law. And I have twice served as a coach to University of Connecticut Law School trial teams in national competitions.

We went to both Atlanta and to Chicago for national competitions. I've been married for over 18 years to Michael Thomann, my husband who is with me today.

And I have two teenage sons, Daniel and William. I have lived in Cheshire since 1990 and I have served on PTA boards, as well as boards of not-for-profits.

In my work, my family and my involvement in my community I take pride in having served the public in a position that ensured public safety and the rights of all of our citizens.

I took seriously my duty to ensure that justice be served, no matter the outcome. As a judge, I will solve problems, not create them.

My teaching and my practical experience have given me insight and perspective on the need to respect the power that comes with this office and to exercise that power carefully.

I will respect all of the parties that appear before me as a judge. And I will ensure that they are heard by the judicial system. I think you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Maureen. And let me add my own congratulations to you on your nomination. What would you consider to be the biggest challenge for you professionally, moving from one side of the courtroom to another?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: As a prosecutor, obviously, I was an advocate for the people of the State of Connecticut. And as a judge, I will be a neutral and fair arbiter who listens to all the parties before me.

And carefully consider all of the facts and the cases before. So as a prosecutor, I was an advocate, and I was a strong advocate for the state.

And as a judge, I will put aside that role as advocate and take on the role of being a fair and impartial judge.

SEN. MCDONALD: They say that when, once you're a prosecutor, it sort of blends into your DNA. That you have that as a part of your core understanding for the pursuit of justice, rather than the administration of justice.

And I don't know if you find the distinction in there, and if you do, what is it and how can you separate it, separate out that part of your prior experience?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Well, the rules of professional conduct give a special responsibility to prosecutors. And that is, that they are to be ministers of justice and not just to look for outcomes in cases.

And that is something that I took very seriously in my years as a prosecutor. I had to examine cases that were presented before me. Whether it was in the GA court.

Under us, you've discussed, are quick time constraints when you have to review a police report and talk to the person that's in front of you that may be a un-represented person who is appearing in court for the first time.

And make a decision. What's going to happen to this case? What programs are available for this individual? What if it's a Part A felony case?

Again, you need to examine the report that's before you, talk to the parties that are involved and make sure that you are seeking the fair and just resolution that ensures the justice for all the parties.

Because as a prosecutor, you represent all of the people of the State of Connecticut, and that includes the defendant that's before you as well.

SEN. MCDONALD: Well what, when you take to the bench, I guess. Let me back up. Yesterday we had the public hearing.

You've heard about this public hearing, and you can clearly tell that it had a great impact on those on the Committee Members who were here at 8:00 at night or whatever time it was.

And one of the things that struck me, at least, was that the process does seem sometimes to take on a life of its own. And at least in that instance, nobody stopped to say to the prosecutor, where is the victim?

Did you notify the victim? And it struck me, we end up half of the time trying to legislate what should be common sense.

And it seems to me that somebody in that courtroom, and I suspect that ultimately it has to be the judge, needs to say, let's figure out what the totality of the circumstance is, even if we have 100 or 200 cases pending on the docket. Are the rights of the defendant being protected? Are the rights of the victim being protected?

And is the prosecution being given a fair opportunity to present its case. But all of those have to be given equal time. And yet, oftentimes nobody is advancing all three legs of that stool at an equal rate, if you will.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Certainly in my experience as a prosecutor, I strove to make sure that all three of those legs were met. And I would intend to do that as a judge as well.

I mean, as a judge you can. You know which cases would involve a victim. You can certainly ask the parties that appear before you.

And take advantage of that opportunity to find out whether or not the victim, whether it be before the plea bargain or before the sentencing have the opportunity to speak and let their feelings be known.

Because that is what the Victims Rights Amendment does ensure for victims.

SEN. MCDONALD: What, if you are confirmed, what would your personal preference be to sit. Sit criminals, civil, do you want to be done with criminal law, move on to something else.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: I would be honored to serve in whatever capacity they ask me to. So I don't have a preference of one over the other.

SEN. MCDONALD: Even though you might not have any familiarity necessarily with the intricacies of foreclosure law or administrative appeals?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Well, that was the nice thing about when I left law school and became an Appellate Court clerk, I didn't necessarily know about those things, but I was expected to write decisions about them.

And so I took the time to learn about those areas. And the Practice Book rules are still the same, whether you're on the criminal or civil side.

And I would take the time to learn about the subject matter that I would be asked to hear cases on.

SEN. MCDONALD: Speaking of the roles. Is there, in your experience, is there any intersection, not intersection, any difference between the rules of criminal procedure in the state court system and the federal court system that you think would be better suited for the state court from the federal court system?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: I actually think that Connecticut has done a good job with the recent rules that came out a few years ago of how to find what our common law was of adopting some of the aspects that were from the federal rules. In my practice, I found it quite workable.

SEN. MCDONALD: When did you first apply to Judicial Selection?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: In 1999.

SEN. MCDONALD: And were you approved shortly thereafter.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: No, that was the period of time where I believe there was quite a backlog. So it was some two years before I had an interview. I was approved by the Judicial Selection Commission in 2001.

SEN. MCDONALD: And, I'm sorry, how many jury trials have you performed?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Well, because, all together or just in the last five years.

SEN. MCDONALD: Both.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: In the last five years jury trials was only three. Now in the last five years two of them have been as an Executive Assistant State's Attorney where I didn't have quite the opportunity to try cases, although I did try one.

Two of those criminal matters were before three judge panels so of the 10 cases that I've tried in the last five years, five were habeas cases up in the [inaudible] Judicial District and then five were criminal matters, two of which were before three-judge panels.

Altogether, I believe I have tried, to verdict, to both judges and juries, I would say over 40 cases.

SEN. MCDONALD: And what were the three judge panel cases that you tried?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: State v. Rizzo was a retrial of a capital felony sentencing. And I also tried State v. Colon, which was a retrial of a murder case before a three-judge panel.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: I just want to congratulate on your nomination. I think Judge Keegan, the last time we met was in the fall, and I think that you participated in the informational hearing regarding special assaults on sports officials.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Yes, I did. I represented the Division.

SEN. KISSEL: And I have to say you were extraordinarily helpful in that informational hearing. I thought you put a lot of time and effort into looking that issue to prior to that informational public hearing and it was much appreciated.

It's funny, the anecdotal information that I've heard is that I don't believe that should you get confirmed and you go to the bench that you would ever exhibit any kind arrogance or anything like that.

But the anecdotal evidence is sort of interesting in that when people have areas of great expertise and you said when you went from law school and you worked as a clerk.

You tend to actually, the worst that I've heard is that they flower and they just blossom as judges in areas that they had not the most amount of experience in the past.

In other words, not only is it a daunting and humbling experience to go from practicing law to being put on the bench, but when it's an area that you don't have great familiarity with.

It's really is a humbling experience and judges seem to flower in that environment. So, I don't know that they would assign people based upon their needs.

And you stated that you would be happy to go anywhere. And I think you would be as tremendous on the criminal side as the civil side.

But it really is a whole brand new world and I think that you're just going to do it tremendously good job for the people of the State of Connecticut.

I really don't have any grilling questions this afternoon for you. I think you're going to do a great job and I congratulate you.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Thanks very much, Senator.

REP. FARR: Yes, I also want to join in congratulating you on your nomination. It's one of these mixed blessings. We're going to miss having you around on matters.

I've worked with you on the DNA task force and you've certainly been prepared on everything. And it's a real pleasure working with you. I think you'll enjoy your service on the bench and I think you'll do a great job. So congratulations.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Thank you very much.

REP. BERGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a couple of comments. I don't have any questions but to ditto the comments of Representative Farr and your good work on the DNA Commission.

And getting that up and running and working with the various members to forge some changes that were needed this year.

And also to, when reviewing and certainly with all due respect to all of the other candidates that are before us today. I certainly believe that your qualifications are superior.

That I would see no reason why this Committee would not approve you unanimously. Because of the fact that not only are you firm and fair, you're knowledgeable.

You've tried the tough cases. Three capital felony murder convictions out of the Waterbury office working with the State's Attorney John Connelly.

And the great work that you've done working with law enforcement. Through my experience in Waterbury and working with the detective bureau, the investigative bureau there.

And in trying these very difficult cases, again in being firm and fair and reaching a verdict which I believe is obviously the correct one.

In working with the Police Academy and reaching out to the Municipal Police Officers of the State of Connecticut. Teaching them the ropes of how cases are tried and the ins and outs, investigations and testimony.

You've just done a great job and in such a short amount of time. So I look forward to this vote today. If we have it today or in the future with confidence not only on this Committee, but on the floor.

So thank you for your devotion to the State of Connecticut and for your continued service. Maureen, thank you.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. On behalf of your friends and neighbors and extended family in Greenwich, congratulations Judge.

Your extended family has a long history of serving the state and the town. And the Keegan name is synonymous with service and grace and all of those good things.

We're very, very, very proud of you. Congratulations.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Anything further from members of the Committee? Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We'd like to thank Representative Powers because the newspapers said Attorney Keegan was from Greenwich, but her paperwork said she was from Cheshire. So it seems like that ambiguity has been resolved.

Congratulations, Attorney Keegan. Members of the Committee that have an opportunity to vote twice today for Attorney Keegan, you can vote for her nomination.

You also have a chance on our agenda to vote for Senate Bill 443, which represents her draftsmanship on some issues concerning domestic violence.

I had the pleasure to meet with her several times over the course of the summer to develop this legislation. So when you vote for the bill, know that you're also voting for Judge-to-be Keegan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: You do PR too, huh, Senator. Representative Giegler.

REP. GIEGLER: Yes, Maureen, it's wonderful to see you here today. Congratulations. I know it's a goal that you've had for yourself, so it's nice to see you obtain that goal.

And having worked with your mom for years at Greenwich Hospital, I know she's so proud. Congratulations.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. Good to see you. I posed a question earlier to Mr. Calmar and I made it known then that I would have every one who came before the Committee responds to that question.

And so I am at this point doing that very thing. Raising the question of the issue of disparity within the judicial system.

And not necessarily the judicial system but throughout our system of justice, the issue of disparity and whether or not you feel that the judicial system ought to be proactive and what kind of remedies do you see that should come forward.

Or do you have any suggestions you would make about how we would rectify that issue of disparity that has been with us for a while. I think two weeks ago it was made known that the issue of disparity in the State of Connecticut fully exceeds any state in the Northeast.

And that we do a terrible job as it relates to the treatment of women. Not in terms of their fiscal treatment, but the fact that they are incarcerated.

So I'd be curious to know what thoughts do you have about remedy and how, do you perceive the Judicial Department being proactive in finding that remedy?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: Thank you Representative Dyson. And yes, I do believe that the Judicial Department, the Judiciary, judges that sit on the benches and appear in courts every day can be proactive.

I commend this Legislature for the many programs that it has created over the years. Programs that are alternatives to incarceration. Pretrial diversionary programs that allow judges the discretion to look at a case before them and decide what can be done.

I too have read the executive summary of the report on the racial and ethnic disparity. And as a judge, I would keep those recommendations in the forefront of the decisions that I would be called upon to make.

REP. DYSON: Thank you and let me follow-up if I might. There has been this ongoing debate about the balance between those who serve as, the prosecution and those who have not.

In that, there needs to be a balance. And I would suggest that based upon the list of people here today that some of that is taking place.

However, you do have what has been an experience that you can't deny. That's your experience that you had the opportunity of working closely with prosecution.

And now you would go to the other side and you're now on the bench. And before you will come people, people you have worked with. So the assumption could be that there might be an inclination toward favoritism.

You know somebody. You trust somebody. Or you worked with somebody. This is a person that you hold in high esteem. They may come along with a deal.

As the young woman talked about last night in which she was not informed of that deal taking place. And it became found action on the part of the judge.

It is entirely possible that a new judge being confronted with a deal from the prosecution that you may be trusting of that person and be inclined to accept that deal.

And I don't mean to use the term deal in a derogative fashion. It's just bringing a case to closure. But you may find yourself inclined to be trusting of the person offering the deal on the case without providing you with an opportunity to fully review the case.

So that brings to me the question of whether or not your past experiences will be called upon, not by you, but those who might seek to take advantage of it, to foster their own feathers in their caps.

To get closure to a case. To get things resolved. To move the business along. A question was raised earlier by Senator McDonald. How do you handle that balance?

With the myriad of cases before you, and the need to move the business along. The temptation is going to be awesome in your regard.

Because you understand that need or you've been there, you know what it is. The friendships are there. The trust is there. People you've worked with. How do you handle it?

MAUREEN KEEGAN: The funny thing about Connecticut being a small state and having worked almost 20 years as a lawyer, you do get to know a lot of people. You certainly do.

And there are people that I trust who are prosecutors. There are people that I trust that are public defenders. There are people that I trust who are defense attorneys.

But if your question is, is that going to make me shirk my duty and looking at the case and making sure that the rights of the defendant are ensured. Making sure that the rights of the victim are met.

No, I will not shirk that duty. I will make sure that all parties are heard. That the defendant's rights are there and that the victim has also been heard from. So it's a small state.

REP. DYSON: Don't I know it. As a part of that smallness that you and I are aware of, and when you consider the situation that I pointed out last night that took place last night.

Somebody was not about the business of being an advocate for all the people. Because something took place based upon that experience last night. That the person that rendered that decision was not about the business of being an advocate for all the people of the state.

And you indicated in your earlier remarks that you had a responsibility to do that. And I guess what I'm trying to do is try to just prod you, to have you be mindful of that notion that sometimes you might forget that.

And I'm not suggesting that you might forget that, but it is forgotten sometimes by people. Now, I'll take the other situation last night, is the young lady came to talk about her son that she deemed to have been treated differently in the criminal justice system in Waterbury last night.

She thought the 15 years that her son got for a first-time crime that he committed and never had done anything else before and a deal had been put forth and here's that deal again.

A deal being put before them that they had no other choice but to accept. But she felt really that injustice had been rendered to her and her son.

And I'm inclined to agree with her when you consider the facts that were presented to us last night as we got to know them. But how does a person who is supposed to be an advocate for all the people allow something like that to happen.

And then when that person comes from the prosecution's side, it kind of raises a red flag with me as to whether or not it is going to be easy for them to do that.

Because it may be more difficult for them to do that. Because of all of the things that I pointed out before. I don't expect an answer on that. I just wanted to point something out. Thank you.

MAUREEN KEEGAN: I just want to reassure you Senator Dyson that I'm hearing what you're saying. I'm aware of the concerns that exist about our criminal justice system here in Connecticut. And I assure all of the Members that I will keep that at the forefront of every decision that I make.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions. If not, thank you very much. Next is Attorney Denise D. Markle of Bethany.

Good afternoon. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please be seated. Welcome and we'd be happy to hear any opening comments from you.

DENISE MARKLE: thank you. Good afternoon Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor and Members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Denise Markle, but I did practice law under my maiden name, Denise Derby for many years.

SEN. MCDONALD: Excuse me, could you pull the microphone a little closer to you?

DENISE MARKLE: Certainly. I reside in Bethany, Connecticut. I would first like to express my gratitude to Governor Rell for submitting my name as a nominee to the Superior Court Bench.

It is truly an honor and a privilege to appear here today. And I am grateful for the opportunity that lies before me. I've always admired and respected the members of the Connecticut Judiciary.

And if approved by this Committee and the Legislature, I assure you that I will work diligently to do all within my power to continue to promote the high degree of professionalism and ethics that members of the Connecticut Judiciary have historically enjoyed.

On a personal note I am married to Peter Markle, who is an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. We have two children who attend the Amity Regional High School.

My daughter Devin is a senior and soon will be off to college. And my son Sam. And they're all present here today offering me their support. I must say that I'm extremely proud of my family and their accomplishments.

On a personal note, I was raised in Val Halen, New York. I moved to Connecticut in 1973 and I attended Southern Connecticut State University and graduated in 1977 with departmental honors.

I subsequently attended Western New England School of Law where I earned a J.D. degree in 1981. It was during those law school years that I participated in the prisoner's rights legal clinic.

And I became interested in criminal law. My first employment in the legal profession came in 1982 as an Associate Attorney in the law firm of Moynahan and Ruskin in Waterbury.

And from 1985 to 1990 I was a partner in a small firm, at the law firm of Donnarumona, Carrington and Derby which later, for a short period of time, evolved into Donnarumona, Derby and Tramuta.

During that period of time, I served as the firm's litigator and I appeared regularly and daily in the criminal, civil, juvenile and family courts in various judicial districts throughout Connecticut.

After the dissolution of the law firm in 1990 I continued to practice in these areas of law as a solo practitioner. For many years I also served as a Special Public Defender in the Judicial District of Waterbury.

While in private practice, I also served as a member of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates on the Connecticut Bar Association.

For many years I was also active as an Executive Board Member of the Criminal Justice Section.

During that period of time, I also served as an Attorney Trial Referee and a Fact Finder for the Waterbury Judicial District as part of their Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.

I was also actively engaged in the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. I served as one of its founding members and also as its President from 1992 to 1993. During that period of time I also sat on the Judicial Selection Commission.

I was appointed by then-Governor Weicker. Other professional affiliations, I did serve on the Criminal Rules Revision Committee at the time which was chaired by the Honorable Judge John Rowland.

And for two years I also served on the Connecticut Law Revision Subcommittee that was formed to draft the Connecticut Rules of Evidence.

And that was chaired by Justice Borden. I left that Commission when I went to the U.S. Attorney's Office and was replaced by Willie Dow.

In 1995 I did have the occasion to interview for a position of the United States Attorneys. It was my good fortune that then U.S. Attorney Christopher Turney hired me as a member of that office.

My responsibilities as a federal prosecutor included the investigation and prosecution of federal criminal offenses in the area of bank insurance fraud, tax and healthcare fraud.

During my tenure I worked with many agents and fellow ASUSA's, including Assistant United States Attorney Michael Runawitz and Special Agent Charles Urser of the FBI.

In a complex litigation and lengthy trial in the matter of the United States v. Joseph Gall. As a result of that criminal prosecution I was the recipient of a Special Act Award.

And while in that office I was also given the opportunity to argue before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on several occasions.

In the spring of 1999 when my children were 12 and 10 years old, respectively, and my mother, who was elderly and living alone in New York was in need, she was in need of special care and medical attention, I decided to leave the U.S. Attorney's Office.

In order to give me the flexibility to meet those family demands I looked to teaching. I was hired as an adjunct professor at Sacred Heart University, first teaching legal research and writing and also business law for the School of Business.

Later that position evolved into a full-time member of the faculty in the Criminal Justice Department where I think I was better qualified.

The courses that I instructed while at Sacred Heart University included courses in white-collar crime, imperative criminal justice systems, law of evidence.

My favorite course was a course that was designed about the issues and problems in the criminal justice system. I also taught criminal law and procedure and also taught a course in juvenile justice.

During this period of time I also served as a volunteer in various community activities. I was a volunteer at the Herring Neighborhood mentoring program in New Haven.

There I had the privilege to work with a delightful 11-year-old student who was, who attended the Anistead School. I was also a volunteer in the local PTA cultural enrichment program.

And most recently, as the parent of the Captain of the local Lacrosse and basketball teams, I've been actively busy and engaged in planning several events and funding for those sports activities.

Most recently I was involved in the formation of a new law firm named Markle, Howland and Gaffney. However, that firm that started late last year and that firm has since dissolved in light of my good fortune to be nominated for a judicial appointment.

As for my qualifications to serve as a judge, I believe my background will serve me well in making decision in a timely, confident and just manner.

I recognize that the qualities that make for a good judge are varied and diverse and that the appropriate judicial temperament is not simply a qualification but an absolute prerequisite.

I'm also confident that my experience as a professor, as a federal prosecutor, as a criminal defense attorney, and as a member of several professional committees, as a community volunteer and as a parent has provided me with the varied foundation upon which I will rely in order to execute my duties as a member of the judicial system.

I hope to use my power and my discretion at all times in a manner that will gain respect, not fear. And I will always strive to do justice should I be given the opportunity to serve the citizens of the State of Connecticut. I thank you for your time and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you and congratulations on your nomination. We welcome you to the Judiciary Committee as well as members of your family.

So, if I understand correctly, basically for the last six years you've been out of the courtroom.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, that's correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: Could you just recap for me again, because I wasn't taking it down, the courses that you taught at Sacred Heart University?

DENISE MARKLE: Yes. I first started off there teaching legal research and writing. And then I went on to teach criminal law and procedure, issues and problems in the criminal justice system, the law of evidence, several other courses in the criminal justice department, juvenile justice.

SEN. MCDONALD: Obviously, at Sacred Heart you were teaching this to undergraduate students.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: Was this in a major field, were these students that were majoring in criminal justice?

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, they were--

SEN. MCDONALD: I'm sorry, please continue if you hadn't finished.

DENISE MARKLE: No, any other questions.

SEN. MCDONALD: When you were at the U.S. Attorney's office, did I understand you to say that a 100% of your trial time was devoted to criminal matters?

DENISE MARKLE: That's correct.

SEN. MCDONALD: Were you ever in the civil division at all?

DENISE MARKLE: I did handle a matter of John Hughes in the Civil Division. He did give me one civil case to handle. I had requested it and that was resolved--

SEN. MCDONALD: Not forfeiture I hope. Does he still do forfeitures?

DENISE MARKLE: No, well he's the head of the Civil Division now, so he does everything.

SEN. MCDONALD: And tell me a little bit about your time on, working with Justice Borden.

DENISE MARKLE: With that Commission, when the Commission first, the Justice Board actually put the committee together for the first two years.

It was a period of time when I was President of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. And he had gathered people, professionals in the criminal field to work on the federal rules of evidence.

Actually, the Connecticut Rules of Evidence. So for two years I was a member of that Commission commuting up to Hartford and working on it. In 1995 when I went to the U.S. Attorney's Office I was unable to stay on that Commission.

And so Willie Dow, who was also active in the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association took my place.

SEN. MCDONALD: And when you formed this law firm that apparently had an extremely abbreviated life, what was your goal for that.

DENISE MARKLE: Just for the year of 2005, after I had left Sacred Heart University I was actually hoping that I might receive some notice on the Judicial for the Judicial Nominee.

As time passed I wasn't sure if anything was going to happen with that and so I decided. Quite frankly, I'm not one to sit for too long and being unemployed at the time I started working about the last six months on the idea of putting a law firm together again.

And I met with many, many people and I secured office space and started the process when I did receive a call from the Governor's Office in February. So we put it on hold.

And then my two partners, instead of wishing to wait around, which is fine, we were all in agreement that they would go and pursue some other avenues. And so we would just dissolve the law firm at that point.

SEN. MCDONALD: When did you first apply to the Judicial Selection Commission?

DENISE MARKLE: My application is dated 1998. I know that I was passed in 1999. I was, I would say I think about in the year 2000, it might have been 2001, I was contacted by a representative of the Governor's Office asking me if I was still interested.

Because of the personal situation and my decision to spend more time with family, I did indicate that I could not, and would not pursue it at that time, but I wished that my name would remain on the list.

I did not hear anything. I was busy with family obligations. My elderly mother passed away about three years ago. Any my family is now grown and so I'm looking forward to becoming actively engaged again in the practice of law and hopefully, as a member of the Judiciary.

SEN. MCDONALD: And in your time when you were not practicing actively, what did you do to keep yourself abreast of developments in the law?

DENISE MARKLE: Well, I should say that I never really feel that I was taken away from the law. Because even though I was teaching, I was teaching criminal justice.

In doing so, when I would formulate a new course or curriculum and for the several years I taught 10 different courses or so. But I always incorporated Connecticut law into my criminal courses.

And I did that because my experience when I sent to law school in Massachusetts was that when I came to Connecticut, I was very unfamiliar with the law.

Most of the students that I was teaching at the time were Connecticut residents. And I always stayed on top and abreast of current changes in Connecticut criminal law during that period of time. So I don't feel that I have, as such, been removed from that.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER: Good afternoon Ms. Markle. I have a high prejudice in favor of people who serve in the U.S. Attorney's Office. I did so myself, and you may have served with my son Jeff Meyer.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, Senator, Yes.

SEN. MEYER: Maria Kahn and I were just chatting and she also was a colleague of my son Jeff's. I took note that you did the remarkable thing [inaudible] I guess as a criminal defense attorney in State v. Velez and State v. Machado, you went to trial and you got, one the case dismissed and one acquittal [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A.]

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, that's correct.

SEN. MEYER: I complement you on that.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you very much.

SEN. MEYER: The other cases, particularly the federal cases that you tired. Can you tell us briefly what kind of cases they were?

DENISE MARKLE: Certainly, if you would give me one second just to pull up the listing that I submitted to your Commission.

SEN. MEYER: I think the first was the United States v. Joseph Gall.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, that was the [inaudible] that I received the Special Act Award for. That was a very lengthy and complex, white collar [inaudible] case that involved tax, some healthcare and primarily insurance. It had to do with nonpayment of tax in a very large industry involving temporary employment agencies.

SEN. MEYER: Right. And then the United States v. Dauray.

DENISE MARKLE: Dauray. That was my last trial before leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office. It was a trial, he was convicted. It was overturned by the Second Circuit. It was a child pornography case. I felt that it was a case that needed to be tried and I did so.

SEN. MEYER: In United States v. Ciak.

DENISE MARKLE: Scott Ciak. That was a trial. And that was a trial which posed some sensitive issues because he was a pro se defendant in federal court.

So I was very sensitive about trying the case in a situation with a pro se as an adversary. He was convicted and he is serving a lengthy [inaudible] prison. That was a weapons case, possession of weapons by a felon.

In United States v. Embriano was an ophthalmologist, a doctor who was fraudulently conducting, he claimed to have laser surgery being conducted in his office.

But the investigation revealed that he never had any of the equipment necessary and never performed any of those surgeries and was submitting bills to Medicare and Medicaid.

SEN. MEYER: That was Medicare fraud.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, that was Medicare fraud. In United States v. Chinniah et al was a healthcare fraud case at a Bristol Hospital where several employees had fraudulently billed and collected for materials that were never billed, or never sent or delivered to the hospital.

It amounted to a substantial sum of money. In United States v. Sage was the appeal, was a case with an appeal that involved the very first case in the federal jurisdiction of enforcing the Child Support Act. It was a test case, as such.

SEN. MEYER: Well, I commend you on your experience both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney and I think you're exceptionally well qualified to go on the bench.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. MEYER: Thank you for choosing that as a career.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Congratulations. I note that, there's not a huge amount of Western New England graduates that get put on the bench.

I think part of it is because as much as they, and that's my alma mater, as well. And you graduated the year that I started, so we missed each other.

SEN. MCDONALD: You're younger than I.

SEN. KISSEL: I'm glad that I'm younger than somebody. But as much as they tout themselves as a regional school I would have to agree with you that their focus is very much Massachusetts.

And as someone who grew up in Windsor, it was very convenient to commute up the highway. But when you when decide to practice in Connecticut, it does take a relearning experience.

I have to ask you this, as the State Senator for 14 years from North Central Connecticut. In U.S. v. Embriano, is that Peter Embriano? And was he practicing in the Enfield area when he was doing these fraudulent acts?

DENISE MARKLE: That's correct.

SEN. KISSEL: I just want to thank you for cleaning up the healthcare system up in our neck of the woods. I have to be very honest.

He was probably ripping off a ton of people in my District and I'm glad that somebody followed up on that and threw the book at him. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Congratulations.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions? Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: How are you doing? Good seeing you here. I just wanted to get a few things out of the way. My question. I noticed that you and I went to the same school, about the same time.

And I remember a classmate named Jane Markle. Are you connected with Jane?

DENISE MARKLE: That was my mother-in-law. She has since deceased. Yes.

REP. DYSON: You were classmates.

DENISE MARKLE: Yes.

REP. DYSON: You know, that's a long time ago. That's dating me. You came a long a little bit later. We've gotten here and I've always had a wonderful appreciation for Jane.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you. Thank you very much. She was a lovely person.

REP. DYSON: Now let me get to the question that I've asked all others. And that is the question about disparity within the System. And whether you think judges ought to be proactive in terms of finding remedy.

And what do you think that remedy should be? How do we get this situation better than what it is?

DENISE MARKLE: Certainly. When I first heard your questions, I had to say that the first thing that crossed my mind is that I had read the report.

But also as an educator, and in my course for Issues and Problems in the Criminal Justice System, this was a topic that was discussed.

And we compared, although we didn't have this Connecticut report, we did address the issue out of some of the New Jersey materials that came about in some other states in the Northeast Region that suffer from the same disparity issues.

So I can't say that I was surprised, but what I was surprised at, the numbers seemed so substantially higher when you saw them on paper.

I suppose that as far as a proactive view while sitting on the bench, I can assure you that it's an issue that I am aware of, that I would take into consideration.

It's also, by the way, I was going to say I wasn't surprised about it because Hugh Keefe wrote an article on this disparity issue 10 years ago in a Connecticut Bar Journal.

And within the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and in the Criminal Justice Committee, it's not a new issue.

I have sat on other committees that addressed alternative sentencing sanctions, alternative bonds to be set, trying to be more creative in an effort to deal with these issues.

And I assure you that if I sit on the bench, I am sensitive to these issues. And I will be looking more carefully. And I would like to see some of the further recommendations that were made and happy to sit on any committee or convention or be a part of any further studies.

Hopefully, I'd certainly volunteer as far being a member of the Judiciary to work on the project. Any such project that would possibly come my way.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Attorney Markle. I just had a quick question. I know that the Chairman mentioned that, and I may have gotten this wrong, so please correct me.

When you were teaching for four years, approximately, at Sacred Heart. And then I see on your application that then you were with, was that your firm after that?

DENISE MARKLE: Yes, after I left I wanted to go back to. Part of the reason that I went to teaching is that it afforded me the flexibility that I needed. As I stated, my children are grown.

My mother no longer has the needs for my attention. And I did want to go back to law once again. So I had just recently worked in the last six months in trying to put this law firm together and those were my efforts.

REP. KLARIDES: I appreciated that that's why you went to teach. And I also appreciated your answer as to the fact that you didn't really find yourself out of the legal profession while you were teaching.

Because I think it's great that there are many ways that we all can practice law in many ways. Not only can we give back, but still stay up with what's going on and I think it adds another dimension to what you have to offer as a Judge.

In addition to that, I would just like to say that I've heard many, many good things about you as an Attorney. And based on that, and your answers today, I have a lot of confidence you'll do a great job on the Bench.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions? Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, Attorney Markle. I just wanted to ask you again the questions that I had asked some of the other nominees earlier.

I think you recall the essence of them. But basically your views on the rights of crime victims that participate, in essence, as full parties in the criminal justice process.

Any thoughts on that, especially given the volume of cases that you're likely to encounter when you get to a GA court here?

DENISE MARKLE: Well, when the topic was brought up I was conferring with the federal expert, my husband over there. And we were talking about the Federal Act as such.

Being aware of the right to come back and address it as a remedy. Think of addressing the guilty plea and having the right to petition as a remedy in those situations.

But I suppose the difference is in the Federal Act it is written into the legislation. And here it is not written in as a remedy. And so there is no statutory.

But as you said, there are going to be some constitutional issues I'm sure that the courts have to address that. But I am cognizant of the issues and I would be very cognizant of this on a daily basis if I were to sit on the Bench.

REP. WALKER: I think it pretty important. I think you heard us talking about. Just last night we had a woman here who was a sexual assault victim who at least feels she was treated without the dignity and respect that she be accorded to her, obviously as a victim of such a thing.

And that does a lot of damage to the Justice System's ability to function. When people [inaudible]. I remember when I first got hired as a prosecutor.

The head prosecutor then used to tell us was the worst thing in the world was a bad cop or someone who alienates an ordinary citizen because they'll come back on jury duty.

Or you'll need them as a witness and if they go away with a sour taste in their mouth about the justice system. You know, that lesson has always stuck in my mind. And I'm sure you're mindful of that as well.

DENISE MARKLE: I believe I might have had the same lesson at some point.

REP. WALKER: And the second question is dealing with the family side. I'm not sure if you've had any experience in this area of the law.

DENISE MARKLE: I have. I've been doing it 13 years. I was in private practice. I was in the GA and the JD courts daily. I went over with the multiple files in my hands and I did do quite a bit of divorce work.

And I also at the Waterbury in Family Services, some time ago now. But I did participate in some of the workshops and give some lectures.

The most recent divorce I did, unfortunately, was for somebody in need that I assisted on a divorce and that was just a few years ago.

So I'm familiar with some of the most statutory, additional steps that you need to do now on the family side that were not when I was practicing and doing divorces on a regular basis.

REP. WALKER: You understand that at least there's this perception out there that somehow the System isn't fair. Who knows if that is true or not true.

Or what the rules should say or shouldn't say. But as is the case with crime victims, if people think somehow they are not getting a fair shake because the System is stacked against them. I think there's an extra burden on the judge to sort of adjust that in try and ensure that people don't go away with that perception. Because that's a lingering thing that does a lot of damage to the overall view of the justice systems. So I hope you keep that in mind--

DENISE MARKLE: I certainly will.

REP. WALKER: in your incumbency. I think you've already answered the other question. So, congratulations to you. It's great to see you.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other questions for Attorney Markle. If not, thank you very much.

DENISE MARKLE: Thank you very much, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Attorney Michael Maronich of Monroe. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please have a seat. And welcome to the Judiciary Committee. We'd be happy to hear any opening comments.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Good afternoon, Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, Members of the Judiciary Committee. Allow me first to express my heartfelt gratitude to Governor Rell for her trust and confidence in me, and to all the members of this Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to be heard on my nomination.

I must also thank my parents, George and Agnes Maronich, who instilled in me the work ethic and values that are ultimately responsible for my journey here today.

My parents migrated to Connecticut from the coal mining regions of Eastern Pennsylvania. And I was born in Bridgeport in 1955, the older of two children.

I was raised in the south end of Bridgeport, attended Sacred Heart School and entered high school at Fairfield Prep. I graduated in 1973 and went on to Boston College where I earned a Bachelor of Arts, Magna Cum Laude with double majors in English and classical Greek.

I graduated from Vermont Law School in 1980 and was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in October of that year. I entered private practice in the commercial litigation firm of Elson and Berg.

But seeking a broader range of experience, I soon left to join George W. Ganim in my hometown of Bridgeport. For the next three years I enjoyed an intensive introduction to the law, practicing daily in the civil, criminal, family and juvenile courts of Connecticut, from New Haven to Danbury to Stamford and everywhere in between.

I hung out my own shingle in 1984. Since that time I have made a concerted effort to challenge myself with the variety and scope of the cases I've handled.

Over the course of my 26 years of practice, I've handled civil juries. Mostly matters involving negligence, personal injury. I've had the opportunity to try a product liability case.

I've handled several medical malpractice cases, trying one to conclusion. I've handled non-jury trials, commercial litigation, foreclosure and bankruptcy, representing creditors as well as debtors.

I've handled criminal matters on the Part B side, proceedings before various state and local administrative boards and commissions.

And all of this while handling all of the myriad of other matters that make up a general practice. Real estate closings, probate, and so forth.

Over the years I've developed an expertise in complex land title issues and have testified as an expert in proceedings before Connecticut and New York state courts, as well as the Federal District Court in Connecticut.

I don't believe there has been a significant litigated or non-litigated matter involving the City of Bridgeport as a party that in the last 15-plus years, in which I have not been involved in some consulting capacity on behalf of the City.

Today I handle almost all of the claims litigation in Connecticut for a major title insurance company. I have been blessed with a practice which has allowed me to represent people from all walks of life.

From corporate and governmental, to the culturally diverse of New England's second largest city.

On a personal note, my wife Mary and I were married in March 1983. I have an adult stepdaughter who is married and lives in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Mary and I have two children. A bright and vivacious 13-year-old daughter named Ariel, who will be entering high school next year.

And an 18-year-old son George Michael, who will be graduating from Fairfield Prep this year and entering the Conservatory at the Manhattan School of Music to study piano performance and pursue a career as a concert pianist.

Perhaps some of you were in the audience when he made his debut at the Bushnell last year as a soloist with the Hartford Symphony at the age of 16.

Shortly after moving to Monroe in 1987, I was appointed to the town's Conservation Commission. I drafted the Inland Wetlands Regulations and served as the first chairman of the town's Inland Wetlands Commission before leaving to serve on the Monroe Town Council.

Currently I serve on the Board of Directors of Chamber Music Central, a chartable corporation dedicated to providing classical music education, chamber music opportunities and music outreach programs to gifted young musicians.

I also serve as a trustee of my church, St. John's the Baptist Philistine Catholic Church in Trumble, Connecticut.

Several years ago a longtime interest in computers, together with a mixture of fascination and apprehension about this information revolution we're living through drove me to take a course in Computer Science.

Once back in school I was hooked and by May of last year I earned a Master of Science degree in computers and information systems. At the graduation ceremony at Sacred Heart University, I was awarded the Silver Medal of Academic Excellence for my work in cryptography.

At present I am about a course away from a Post-graduate Certificate in Network Security. In concluding, I would like to make special mention of some of the teachers along the way who have made a difference in my life.

From my days at Fairfield Prep, Father Dan Sullivan. From Boston College, Father Carl Fair. And from Sacred Heart University for her encouragement and enthusiasm, Professor Sandy Honder. At this time, I'd be pleased to answer any questions which the Committee Members may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you and congratulations on your nomination. One of the things that I was looking at in your application is the split between your civil and criminal experience.

And frankly, in your federal and state court experience. You're trying to say that the lion's share of your work has been in state court, not federal court?

MICHAEL MARONICH: It was, yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay, let's put aside the federal court experience that you've had. It also appears that the lion's share of your work in state court has been in the civil context as well.

MICHAEL MARONICH: It was.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Let's start with the criminal stuff first. What was the nature of your criminal representation and when was that?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well in the early days of my practice, the first three years, I had quite a bit of criminal experience back then. Actually I would say that the mix back then was probably about a third criminal.

It was a very busy practice then. Typically every day started with an appearance at one of the GA's, followed up by a mad scramble to get over to the Main Street.

It was just a matter of deciding who I could least afford to have them be angry at me for being late for a court appearance.

I usually, I still do handle a number of criminal cases every year. Within the past year a, I handled a matter up in Derby involving a reckless operation with very significant injuries to the victim.

I've handled, I've not handled anything in Part A criminal. It's all been Part B. But some of the matters have been fairly significant. A sexual assault matter, some fairly heavy assault cases.

SEN. MCDONALD: And did you try those through to conclusion, or--

MICHAEL MARONICH: No, I've never tried a criminal case. And I can say I've started a criminal trial nor tried one to conclusion.

SEN. MCDONALD: Now with respect to the civil litigation, could you sort of give me overview of the nature of the civil litigation that you have had in say the last five years.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, within the last five years, I have not tried a jury case to conclusion. I have had a matter which I referred to another attorney, purely as a matter of economics.

Because I took the case and the cost to finance the trial was kind of staggering. So I assisted on that matter. In the last five years, most of the litigation that I've had has been court side.

These are typically going to involve commercial-type of litigation and it could be anything. It could be constructive trust, it could be something as simple as a collection matter.

Or something a little more exotic like a claim under the Fraudulent Transfers Act. So it has been a very mixed bag. It's been a variety.

SEN. MCDONALD: And has that been fairly constant over your whole practice? Or has your practice evolved since you first started?

MICHAEL MARONICH: The practice has really evolved and gone through a lot of changes. I think probably 10 or 12 years ago I had a lot heavier mix of jury matters.

And that would be the time period when I had the opportunity to participate in the product liability case and the medical malpractice cases.

I still have a fair number of personal injury cases. But I think over the years that I've become much more successful at settling these cases early on and not getting to the courthouse steps or half way through a trial before the case resolves.

SEN. MCDONALD: And did I understand that you have a background in doing title work and title litigation.

MICHAEL MARONICH: It started a long time ago when I first hung out my shingle. To supplement some of the work, I started to do title search work.

It wasn't something that I wanted to do full-time, but it sort of blossomed into a specialty where I began to large, unusual projects and title issues.

A lot of that was for the City of Bridgeport. Some of it for private clients. And that spun off onto an introduction to someone at a title insurance company and I handled a few matters for them.

And over the course of time I've become their sole Connecticut counsel handling all of their claims. As I've mentioned, I've testified as an expert witness on some title, land title litigation matters.

SEN. MCDONALD: In looking over the 10 cases that you've sort of cited as the representative samples of your experience in which you had a significant role.

You've actually referenced a case, I guess it was the Andrews vs. Metro North case. And I guess I'm trying to figure out how. Well, you listed it as one of the most significant litigated matters you've handled.

And yet, in the description of what you did, you actually say that you didn't handle anything, you served as a ghost counsel. What's a ghost counsel?

MICHAEL MARONICH: That was the best way I could describe it. When I got together with the other attorney who handled it, we were close friends. We decided that we didn't want to over-lawyer the case.

That he should be the sole appearing counsel in the case. And I would be in the courtroom. We would prepare the case, we would meet in the evenings, we would go through the following day.

During the trial, whatever needed to be done, if something needed to be looked up or researched I could make a quick exit from the courtroom and come back.

So it was a very unusual way to handle the case. I did handle the case, although I never had a formal appearance in the case. And I listed it because I thought it was one of the most significant experiences I'd been involved in.

It was the sole personal injury matter that I was involved in which was in Federal District Court. And for that reason I felt it was important to include it.

SEN. MCDONALD: It sounds like you had a very active role in the case, and yet you didn't have an appearance in the case? Why--

MICHAEL MARONICH: Again, so that the case wouldn't be over-lawyered. If I had an appearance I would be sitting at Counsel table. And Metro North actually had, was very well represented. They had two, or three, or four attorneys at the table.

And to better show the appearance of sort of a David and Goliath, to give the case more of a David and Goliath appearance, we thought that this was the best way to handle it.

SEN. MCDONALD: And this was in federal court?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Federal District Court.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Now the, one of the things that I guess I would want your opinion on here. One of the benefits of being a judge of Superior Court is that you actually get a vote on the Rules Committee of the Superior Court.

So maybe you could give me your opinions of two or three differences between the Practice Book under the state court and the federal rules of civil procedure that you think that the judges of the Superior Court should look at on the civil side.

What are some differences between the state procedure and the federal procedure that you think the state procedure could be improved by?

MICHAEL MARONICH: While I haven't handled a litigated matter in federal court in some time. The litigated matters that I've handled more recently within the last five years have been in the bankruptcy court.

And those were matters that were typically involving applications for relief from stay. Dischargeability of debts. So at this point, having had that much distance from the federal, and as you noted, I indicated that my practice is currently very heavily biased toward the state court.

I'm probably not going to be able to offer you some sort of intelligent critique of comparison.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. One of the things that we're kicking around, and I know the judiciary is, right now is, any changes under the code of evidence in the state court.

Do you have any recommendations for changes to the codes of evidence that you think we should be looking at?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I really don't. I seem to have grown up from law school and through the practice with a practical knowledge of the rules apply.

And I don't know that there is anything that I'd want to tell you to change.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay, now with respect to your participation in Bar Association activities, have you ever served on an executive committee or been a chair of a Bar Association Committee?

MICHAEL MARONICH: No, I have not.

SEN. MCDONALD: Have you done anything with respect to Bar Association activities in terms of, which sections of the Bar Association are you a member of, if any?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, at some point in the past, Bridgeport had a, Bar had a pro bono program and I had my name on the list for that. And I handled a few cases, but that sort of went by the wayside over time.

There was another committee that the Bridgeport Bar was starting up that was a Lawyer's Concern for Lawyers.

And I know that I had put my name in for that when the committee list was circulated but there was never a meeting. And so that was another subcommittee that sort of went by the wayside.

SEN. MCDONALD: When did you first apply to the Judicial Selection Commission?

MICHAEL MARONICH: About two years ago, it was around this time that I submitted the application.

SEN. MCDONALD: That was the first time that you applied?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I applied in the past. I applied, I think approximately 10 years ago and was not asked by the Commission so I applied again two years ago. And I think my application was heard in the summer, late summer of 2004.

SEN. MCDONALD: So you applied, maybe a decade ago and for whatever reason. Well, I should, did you ever come to find out whether you were given a reason for not being selected by the Commission?

MICHAEL MARONICH: No, I was never given a reason.

SEN. MCDONALD: And what made you reapply later on?

MICHAEL MARONICH: It was always in the back of my mind that this was something that I wanted to do. I think I formulated the idea very early when I was in law school that when I took a trial practice course we actually went to observe a trial.

I actually formulated then, I had an idea that this was perhaps the noblest thing that an attorney could do. It was the best way to give something back. And after 26 years I think I had the experience and the maturity to serve the judiciary well.

SEN. MCDONALD: Have you ever written any journal articles or publications for professional magazines or scholarly journals?

MICHAEL MARONICH: No, I have not.

SEN. MCDONALD: What do you think would be the most difficult thing for you to do if you were fortunate enough to be confirmed a position on the Bench. What would be the most difficult thing for you to migrate over into that role?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I think probably the area that I've been away from for the longest would be juvenile. I've handled a couple of juvenile cases over the last two years.

Not a lot. So it's an area where I think I might have the biggest learning curve. I think I would feel comfortable walking into any of the civil courts or the GA.

So perhaps juvenile was the one area that I've had the least experience in over the course of my practice.

SEN. MCDONALD: And just finally, one of the things that Members of this Committee in the past have been fond of saying is that many lawyers when they become judges are afflicted with robe-it is.

And that is the super natural sense of power that comes along with a black robe. What would you do to ensure that it, that a confirmation of such authority and power on you would not go to your head and be an affliction to you and others?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I've been on the receiving end of that several times during the course of my practice. And it leaves a lasting impression. I think that's probably the biggest deterrent is the recollection and the memory of unpleasant times.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: Thanks Mr. Chairman and congratulations Attorney Maronich. So you've heard the questions earlier and obviously you've had some experience in the criminal courts, in Bridgeport for the most part? Is that what you said?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Bridgeport, the surrounding towns, Milford, Derby, New Haven, Stamford, Norwalk.

REP. LAWLOR: So you got a good dose of the hustle and bustle of the Golden Hill Street Court House and how that works.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Yes.

REP. LAWLOR: And obviously if you are confirmed you'll probably be in a place like that relatively soon and you'll have to deal with these decisions.

Is there anything about being thrust into that environment that makes you wonder if you could, not so much intellectually handle it or anything like that, but it's a tough spot for people to be in. You know, to make decisions that affect people's lives in rapid succession like that.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Golden Hill Street is quite a place. It's got an overwhelming docket. If you've sat through that arraignment in Courtroom A, you could clearly see that.

It's just handling it out of necessity, they find a way to do it. There are some judges that are better at it than others. Because there is a lot of material on the docket.

But when a matter comes before the judge that really deserves scrutiny and attention, a good judge will slow everything down in the court, it's due.

REP. LAWLOR: Have you ever had the opportunity to represent victims of crime before the court? I mean did you have clients come to you and say, I was the victim of this or that, whether it's domestic violence or whatever. And have to come in as an advocate for a victim?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Nothing like that. I'm sure that in the past I've had clients call that may have received an application for an accelerated rehabilitation.

But it was nothing on a significant matter. Most of the time where I've had to deal with victims it's been where I've been representing the criminal defendant, usually on an accelerated rehabilitation application.

REP. LAWLOR: And so, you've heard the earlier questions--

MICHAEL MARONICH: I have.

REP. LAWLOR: You know the victim shows up in court and in theory there are all of these rights in the Statute Book and the State Constitution, but at least they come away thinking, maybe I got the run around.

Maybe people weren't leveling with me. I really wasn't allowed to participate in a way that I thought I could participate. Do you have any thoughts on that whole dilemma?

And what, if any, remedies do you think there are for people who are trying to assert their rights as a victim?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I have some observations on it. My experience has been that the way victims or the amount of time that victims are accorded, really varies from GA to GA.

I think it's a function of the caseload. The resources of the State's Attorney's Office and the personalities of some of the state's attorneys involved.

One that I can think of that I mentioned in Derby, the victim really participated to quite an extent in that matter. And the particular state's attorney, I can't recall her name off the top of my head right now.

But she really accorded the victims quite a bit. And I think the process worked out very good. We reached a good resolution for everyone involved.

Other busier GA's, you know, it's a lot more difficult for a victim to be heard. I think that it's something that maybe the Legislature needs to flesh that out.

I don't know that there is really a uniform policy among the state's attorneys and the various GA's as to how they handle these things.

As I said, it all seems to be a matter of personal to each particular state's attorney how deeply they want to get involved in that.

REP. LAWLOR: You understand that at the end of the day, assuming you're confirmed as a judge, you'll be the one who has to ultimately has to ensure that everyone's rights are respected.

Not just the defendant in a criminal case but also the victims. And so from time to time it may require you to interrupt what would be the normal flow of the day for a prosecutor and moving a case or whatever, and saying, where is the victim.

If we are going to dispose of this case right now, has the victim ever been notified? What's there point of view? Why aren't they here, that type of stuff.

So they'll look to you, as the judge, to be the one who sort of slows the process down and makes sure that everybody is participating to the extent that they are allowed to participate. Do you understand that that would be your responsibility--

MICHAEL MARONICH: Yes, and it goes back to what I said earlier that the good judges, despite a busy docket when they perceive something that needs extra attention, needs to be given special consideration. They will slow the process down. Judges are just rubber stamps of their approving plea bargains.

REP. LAWLOR: Now switching to the family discussion. I don't recall that you mentioned during your opening statement whether you've done a lot of family work.

MICHAEL MARONICH: I've done some. I've tried family matters to conclusion. I have not [inaudible] custody. I've not tried a contested, full contested custody case. I've had matters where visitation was at issue.

The family stuff is very emotionally taxing because of the anxiety of it all. The separation and usually every one of those has a layer of financial anxieties as well.

Two households that are having difficulties surviving on one income are now split into two. It's a very trying time for everyone.

REP. LAWLOR: From your involvement, to date, I mean, as you heard mentioned earlier, there are some people that actually think that the system is biased against men or husbands or fathers and that's reflected in the laws.

And also reflected in the attitudes of judges and I guess other parties. That's at least a perception. Do you agree with that perception? Do you think there is any merit to that point of view? And, if so, what if anything do you think should be done about it?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I can't come to that conclusion based on my own experience. Other people may have different conclusions than I do.

One of the things that I have observed is that sometimes husbands and wives will use custody and visitation as a weapon against each other. Which is very unfortunate, especially for the children involved.

And the courts over the time that I have been practicing have moved in a very good direction with the institution of the Parental Education Program for couples that have minor children.

So I think we need to keep moving in that direction. You never rest and be comfortable that you've reached the pinnacle and that there is nothing further to change.

REP. LAWLOR: You understand why we ask these questions. Because I mean, ultimately when people are frustrated, because they think the system is unfair, they end up here.

And so whether it's about crime victim's rights or in this case, fathers or husbands or men in general in the family court.

And I'm sure Representative Dyson will pursue another extremely important line of questioning about perception about racial disparities in the court system.

There's only so much we can do as Legislators who write the rules. But at the end of the day it is up to judges who are the presiding officers in these courtrooms to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

And more importantly to be aware that people think that sometimes that it is unfair. And in a way, you have to bend over backwards to ensure that people don't go away thinking that they weren't treated fairly.

Even if they may not necessarily win or lose, but fairness is the hallmark and that would be your responsibility as a judge to ensure that, do you understand that?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I do, absolutely.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you very much and congratulations. I just wanted to ask, I don't think it was asked, [inaudible] in this process, which led to you coming here today. Did you hear the question asked as to whether, I guess it's been two years did you say since you got through judicial selection?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, yeah, it will be two this summer, yeah.

REP. LAWLOR: And how did it come to be that, were you contacted by the Governor's Office, or how did that work?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I got a phone call. Fortunately I had more than four hours time. I think I had 16 hours time. I got a call, perhaps it was early February to come to the Governor's Office for an interview.

REP. LAWLOR: And you met with her here at the Capital?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I did.

REP. LAWLOR: And was that the first time that you were contacted by the Governor's Office?

MICHAEL MARONICH: It was.

REP. LAWLOR: Okay. And thank you very much. Congratulations again.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much. Well as we all sit here and sort of like. I've analogized this Committee almost to our own little Appellate Court. We sit here in judgment for a few days and then off you go for eight years, assuming that people get confirmed.

First at the outset in relation to Senator McDonald's question about robe-itis. Just your demeanor this afternoon, I can't imagine anybody less likely to have robe-itis.

It would be a complete shock to me. If all of the sudden you start behaving arrogantly or something like that.

Which brings me to my other point, I had raised that issue about sometimes when judges when they get put on the Bench assuming a different persona.

And I ask that question to previous candidate, Attorney Keegan who corralled me in the hallway and said that I hope that wasn't in reference to me.

And I said no, I was just asking the question in general. So I want to make it very clear, that that was certainly nothing directed at her. She will be outstanding, I have no doubts whatsoever and yourself as well regarding demeanor.

SEN. KISSEL: Regarding your experience, I do have a question. To me, one of the hardest areas, or ways to practice law is to be a solo practitioner. Because you are just juggling everything all the time.

First of all, unlike when you work for one of these larger firms, you don't have the resources that you can devote to accumulating a long list of trials that you have tried to verdict.

A lot of the times, the people that come in the door just for you to make a living, you don't get to pick and choose. You don't have a lot of the high paying clients that afford you the ability to go to the mat and go to verdict, no matter what the possible settlements are.

And you know, I actually sort of feel that that's unfortunate. Because I think that takes a whole pool of applicants out of the mix. If you work for an institution as an attorney, you have all of those resources at your fingertips.

Whether it's a corporate institution, a large firm, or higher education. But if you're out there, and you're in a smaller firm, you know it's hand to mouth a lot of times.

It's meeting payroll, it's getting all of that money together so that you can pay that malpractice insurance bill at the beginning of the year. It's real hard. Which leads me to this question. If you don't have a wealth of cited decisions.

And yet you brought a lot of cases regarding medical malpractice and over the years, in investigating that issue, malpractice reform, whether it's good or bad, whether we should refer them, how judgments are handed down, whether we should put caps on the amount that can be given to victims.

The testimony that we gleaned from that that is an area of extreme expertise and it's high risk. And that you are really investing an awful lot of money and your law firm resources. And your time, when you pursue those cases.

So I'm just wondering. Given what I've read here this afternoon, how was it with you just being a solo practitioner was able to go out there and pursue medical malpractice cases?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, the cases that I talked about here, in terms of the expense, as you know, some of these cases can be just financially ruinous to try and finance.

These were, the issues were relatively narrowly focused. And I think that in each of those cases, I only had one expert witness. One of them I think was the Kleynowski case with the hemolytic disease of the newborn.

And the other one was a single orthopedic surgeon as a witness. Today I don't think that as a solo I would be able to finance and really have the resources to handle that kind of a case. Those were cases that I did, we're going back 10 years ago, or a little bit better now.

And at that point in time I think that those cases were a little bit more affordable and little bit easier to handle based out of my type of practice. Like I said, I don't think I could handle those type of cases today.

SEN. KISSEL: I think that Senator McDonald raised the point that your past experiences are heavily weighted toward the civil side. And knowing what I know.

I haven't been in a GA in a number of years. My practice just hasn't drawn me in that direction. But I did enough way back when where it is very, very familiar.

It's just rough and tumble. It's very fast paced. You have to make a lot of spot decisions. There's a whole cast of characters that are brought in.

If it's a Monday, then you have the people that got arrested over the weekend. Some of them on bail, some of them have been in the lockup over the weekend. [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 3A to Tape 3B.]

--at the bench, do you spend a certain amount of the early period of time in the GA's? And even if it's not a Hartford or Bridgeport, or Waterbury, or New Haven GA, all the GA's are busy.

Go to Manchester. Manchester is busy. There's not enough space to just chat with people if you are defense counsel. And so given the fact that you don't have that criminal background experience.

What are the traits and accomplishments that you bring with yourself to assure us as a Committee that you are ready to sit on the Bench and you are ready to enter that rough-and-tumble world of the GA courthouse?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well I never, in the early days, my first three or four years, I did handle quite a bit of GA work. And I never left that entirely. Every year I probably still handled probably anywhere from a half dozen to a dozen cases in the GA.

And they may be fairly small, and they may be simple. They may range from a DUI case to, in the past I handled a sexual assault matter. So I am familiar with the GA.

It's not something that I would be walking into cold. I don't handle the volume business of GA cases. But it is not unfamiliar to me.

SEN. KISSEL: What is the best qualification you have to be a judge of the Superior Court? And I'll tell you right at the outset I'm throwing you a softball.

MICHAEL MARONICH: My best qualification I think is my experience, my maturity and my demeanor, and my desire.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there any other questions? Representative Green. I'm sorry, I'd already acknowledged Representative Hovey, I'm sorry.

REP. HOVEY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome. I just want to say congratulations on your nomination and [Inaudible, microphone not on] House of Representatives [Inaudible, microphone not on], it's small, independent practices.

And a good old-fashioned lawyer. There's nothing wrong with that. So we would appreciate that [Inaudible]. Your demeanor is your strength.

I find you to be very unassuming and extremely generous in your [inaudible] to give other people credit for things that you have shared and the credits for. And I think that that's a genuine attribute that will serve you well. Best wishes.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. A couple of questions around court procedures. I am very interested in this concept of plea-bargaining. And I heard a lot about that when we did some new appoints just recently.

Can you tell me maybe what your opinion is on the plea bargaining process? What do you think about using it in the court systems?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, there is no standard policy form one GA to another. You may go into a particular GA and the judge, judges may not participate at all in the process.

It might be strictly between the state's attorney and defense counsel. And you may go into other GA's where, at the pretrial stage, the pretrial judge will have the attorneys in chambers and it will be kind of a round robin fashion.

You know, who has the next case, let's see if we can do business. The plea bargaining process is kind of rough-and-tumble. It can produce good results and bad results.

It really depends on the defense counsel has to care for the client and place the client in the best possible light. And I know this will kind of slide into Representative Dyson's line of questions.

And forgive me if I'm starting to anticipate, but I think that looking at the report, the Commissioned Report. One of the parts is they talk about the bail process, the police, state's attorneys and judges.

But they don't really talk about defense counsel. And defense counsel is a pretty major player. Whether it's a public defender or a private counsel, because they are the ones who ultimately sell the client the plea bargain. So plea-bargaining can be, it's tough business.

REP. GREEN: I guess I might be a little concerned about how you term sell the client on the plea bargain. And I appreciate your candor. And I do agree actually that it is a sell job.

It does disturb me that the plight of a person and their livelihood might be bought or sold in a sense of that manner.

I guess, being a non-attorney always think of what I learned in school about court is an opportunity to hear both sides and through a process of guilty or innocent will be found.

Can you expand on what you think a judge's role should or should not be in the plea bargain process? What do you think the judge should do?

MICHAEL MARONICH: The judge has an opportunity and an obligation to make sure that the sentence or the sanction hits the infraction or the crime. Judges have to look beyond sometimes what they merely see in front of them.

They have to look very hard at the defendants that are presented to them. I think it's a real skill not to be persuaded unconsciously by all of the little things that are passed as nonverbal communication.

I think again, going back to that issue on disparate treatment. If disparate treatment is the result of intentional conduct, then that's cynical and ethereous and we all know what that is.

But there is also a lot of stuff that passes unconsciously. And I know that when I represent criminal defendants, and again I don't represent them in volume.

So the ones that I do represent are small numbers and I think I am able to take a lot more care and attention with what I do. It's an effort to present your client in the best possible light.

I tell my clients when they come to court, that they have to wear a jacket and tie. I instruct them that when they speak to the judge, how they address the court, how they react to the court.

Because I think that judges are just ordinary men and women and they are swayed by all of the unconscious communication that goes back and forth between them and the Bench and that defendant sitting out there in the audience.

And if I'm representing a minority client, I want him to have as a good of a shot as the kid coming from the suburbs that is standing there with his parents on each side of him and is dressed in his suit and his hair is combed.

REP. GREEN: Based on your comment, do you think that judges are influenced by the appearance of the defendant?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I think perhaps some are sub, are unconsciously influenced by the appearance. I think you have to look beyond it. You have to. It's a matter of education.

Disparity, I think spins off onto other disparity. Racial disparity, economic disparity, and disparity in education, sophistication.

And I think all of these things roll up into a big ball that conspires sometimes to cast somebody in a light that's very unfavorable to them.

And I think that it's sometimes very hard for a person when they're seeing a criminal defendant come before them for a few minutes to look beyond that.

And understand why that person may not be dressed well. Why they may not, why they may appear to be disrespectful to the court. It's a matter of education and understanding. It takes effort.

REP. GREEN: I've always been interested in sort of the introduction that judges give when courts start. And I'm also always interested in when a defendant is before a judge.

And I believe the judge reads what could be what could be the maximum penalty for an offense. And I sometimes, based on hearing the case here the other day here in the Committee.

You sort of get, in my sense, the worst-case scenario.

With this kind of charge, you could be facing this. And so that I heard a case the other day, so that when an offer was offered, that was obviously less than what the maximum penalty could be, it sounded like it was a better good offer.

What is your thought on whether or not that kind of statement, based on the charge you're facing these kind of penalties or consequences. What is your thought on whether or not there is any purpose in making that statement?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well I've always understood that the defendant has to understand and know the maximum exposure of the charge to which he is subjected.

So I think that from that point of view, I think it is necessary to inform the defendant of the penalty provisions for the crime.

Is there a way around it, that it can be done without creating the types of insinuations you're talking about, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how you would do that.

REP. GREEN: My last question is, any plea-bargaining situation, you did mention that you thought that the defense attorney was the key person here.

I find most of the time, and again, I'm not always aware of all of the things that may go on in terms of conversation with the defense attorney, the prosecutor and the judge.

But it appears to me that the prosecutor is somewhat of the leader in that arrangement. That is, it is their recommendations, it is what they agree to.

In your statement in terms of selling a plea-bargaining, who do you think is the person that is doing this, who is the seller?

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, maybe that's a harsh way to put it. But what frequently happens is, there is a give and take process between the state's attorney and defense counsel.

And defense counsel may have in his own mind what he believes is a fair disposition and the state's attorneys as frequently happens is going to be at a different point.

I find, going back to the plea bargaining process that if you do have skillful judge that participates in the plea bargain, that they're not just going to be Solomon and cut the baby in half and divide it in the middle.

That a good judge that can participate in the plea bargaining process can kind of see through the mist and really come to a reasonable resolution.

And then, of course, the defense counsel has to go back, and sometimes criminal defendants have an unrealistic expectation of what the results should be.

So from that point of view, it's a sell, because you've got to persuade the client. And again, I think if defense counsel feels that he is being proposed a plea-bargain which is not fair and just, I think he has an obligation not to take it.

It's just that plain and simple. Sometimes the defendant can have an unrealistic expectation and from that point of view, it requires some discussion and persuasion.

REP. GREEN: Would you indicate that you had not had a lot of experience in the criminal courts? I was trying to follow some of your experience. and it sounded like it was not heavily, heavy in the criminal docket.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, in the early days, in my first three or four years, I did have a fair, a pretty good amount of experience in the GA's. As time has gone by, I've had less. But I always have a number of cases in the GA kicking around at any given time.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Senator Gomes.

SEN. GOMES: Just one question. In the plea bargaining that you talked about, when the judge reads off the maximum sentence and they come to a conclusion. In your experience that you had in the criminal court.

In most cases do you think that reading off that maximum and settling for a plea bargain is done in most cases to give a defendant a break or is it just to dispose of the case?

MICHAEL MARONICH: I don't think it's done, if what's you're getting at, is it done to intimidate a defendant. I don't think so. I've always understood as a matter of course that the defendant has to be advised of the exposure that the charges carry.

And that's got to be communicated to him at some point. So if it has that effect on a defendant, I think that is unfortunate to say the least. But I'm not sure that there is a graceful way around that.

SEN. GOMES: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Any questions? Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Good afternoon and congratulations to you. Representative Dyson is in conference and he has delegated to me the responsibility of putting to you the questions that he's asked all of the other nominees who have appeared before.

I understand the importance of that question to be whether or not judges individually and collectively should be proactive in addressing the perceived or apparent disparity within the criminal justice system.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well, they should. They have an obligation to be proactive. They have an obligation when a matter comes before them to weigh and balance it against their experience as to how the law has been applied to other defendants similarly situated.

Do similar defendants having committed similar crimes despite the fact that they may be from different racial or ethnic groups, are they being treated equitably. Are they being treated in the same way across the board? So yes, the judge does have an obligation.

SEN. COLEMAN: I suppose, I want to follow up by just stating to you that in your earlier responses made an articulated, some insights which I share.

Particularly your comments concerning nonverbal communication and judges being only human and perhaps susceptible to some of these nonverbal influences.

Some of the things that concern me with respect to judges and the role that they play in the current climate, particularly, is the pressure that is brought to bear to dispose of cases and reduce the volume of cases, particularly in the GA's.

I'm wondering, how you, or any of your fellow nominees, how you bear up, or stand up to that pressure. I know it's a balancing act. But I think it becomes very difficult.

And it's probably easy today to say that you will take the time to treat each defendant individually, which I think is the crux of the matter.

I think disparities tend to occur when one poor kid who comes before the Bench is treated as the same or the same as the poor kid that proceeded him in the case that proceeded him.

And somehow or other, I think there's got to be struck a better balance of treating these cases individually and taking the time to discern which defendants, despite appearances or economic background or color or ethnicity, which defendants probably deserve to be treated harshly and which may merit a break.

There are probably three areas that I would want to elicit some reaction from you. Not even reaction, just to express one Legislator's concerns about some of the frailties of the system.

And those three areas are in the areas of bail, sometimes treated very routinely and perfunctory but could have a very important impact on what the eventual outcome of a case is.

Particularly in the instances where bail may be excessive and it means that either the defendant is incarcerated while the case is pending in lieu of bail, or not.

It has all kinds of implications on whether or not that defendant would be able to have the opportunity to assist in the preparation of his defense. It creates, I believe, some pressures to resolve the case just to get it over with.

MICHAEL MARONICH: The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant shows up for trial. Bail should not be used as some sort of a, for lack of a better phrase, a preventative detention, or preventative release.

SEN. COLEMAN: I'm aware of that. I'm not sure in practice whether bail is treated in that manner. I think in some instances it is used as some sort of preventive measure or even as punishment, unfortunately.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Well the context that it would arise before me, if this Committee passes me and I am confirmed, would be not in the first instance when bail is set, but when the defendant comes before the arraignment court and an opportunity is made to argue the amount of the bail, or to reduce the bond.

So at that point, that's the earliest, that I as a judge, would have to address that issue. So again, it's a matter of, you know, using the same principles across the board for similarly situated defendants with similar backgrounds.

SEN. COLEMAN: I appreciate that response. And I raised the issue of bail really as an attempt to just sensitize you to some of the areas that some of us are concerned about within the system.

Which may be contributing to some of the disparity outcomes. That seem to persist in the criminal justice system.

And I've already mentioned, I guess, and you, I think, share my view, but sometimes just because of the crush of business, we tend to treat everybody sort of perfunctory and maybe not spend enough time.

There's pressure coming from the top to dispose of cases, to move cases, to reduce caseloads and to address the volume of cases, particularly in the GA.

And again I think that that kind of approach tends to contribute too much of the disparity outcomes that persist within the system.

And finally, one of the practices that concerns me greatly, sort of related to the issues that Representative Green and Senator Gomes have raised with respect to plea-bargaining, is the practices that seem to prevail in the GA.

Particularly with judicial pre-trials. Where a final offer is made. And the defendant is pretty much told, you either take this, or if you go to trial and lose, you're going to receive the maximum sentence.

I'm very uncomfortable with that approach and I've encountered it in many of the GA's that I practice in. One of the real injustices of that approach, to me, seems to be that all of the consequences of going to trial fall on the defendant.

And if the defendant does opt to go to trial, and there's a not guilty finding, coming from the jury in particular, there are absolutely no consequences to the state.

Who have utilized the apparatus of the system and caused the resources and the expense of a trial. There are not consequences on the state's side.

All of the consequences in that approach seem to fall upon the defendant. And that concerns me a great deal. And I just wondered if you have any reaction to that.

But the most important part of me raising that, is just to indicate to you as, potentially a new judge, what some of the concerns are, and what at least one Legislator contributes to some of the disparities that occur within the system.

MICHAEL MARONICH: I appreciate you taking the time to express that to me. I don't, again, I don't have any, as I sit here, there is no magic solution to this. These are difficult problems. But I understand and I hear what you're saying.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, are there any other questions. If not, thanks again and congratulations.

MICHAEL MARONICH: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Next is Attorney Leslie Olear of West Hartford. Good afternoon, Attorney Olear.

LESLIE OLEAR: Good afternoon.

REP. LAWLOR: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

LESLIE OLEAR: I do.

REP. LAWLOR: Please be seated and as you know, it's customary to make an opening statement, so please go ahead.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you, Representative Lawlor. Good afternoon, Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Leslie Inrig Olear.

I am pleased to appear before you today and honored to have been nominated by Governor Rell. I am looking forward to the challenge and opportunity of this unique and important aspect of public service, should I be confirmed.

I was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but my family moved to Connecticut when I was quite young. And I attended public schools in Farmington.

I graduated Summa Cum Laude from Central Connecticut State College and Cum Laude from Western New England College School of Law and from Boston University with a Masters in Taxation.

During my second year of law school I was hired as a law clerk at the firm of Cohn and Birnbaum. The firm at that time was counsel to a developer of a large condominium project and I was charged with coordinating the documentation produced with the discovery process of ongoing litigation.

After graduation from law school in 1981 I became an Associate at the firm. I am still at Cohn and Birnbaum, which is a Connecticut based firm headquartered in Hartford.

That same practice is in all aspects of commercial law. I am currently a managing partner of the firm and the head of the real estate group.

As an Associate I work in all departments. I appear in housing court on landlord/tenant matters. At foreclosure proceedings and at various [inaudible] matters.

I also handle the probate of several estates. As the real estate market boomed, so did the business of the real estate practice group.

In my practice I represented clients in connection with the acquisition, development and financing of industrial properties, biotech, office, retail complexes, multi-family housing and mixed used projects.

I am responsible for legal work in connection with many matters, including the conversion of the former SNET building at 300 George Street in New Haven to biotech use.

In the acquisition and mediation and reuse of many environmentally contaminated properties. As a component of my practice, I've gained significant experience in navigating, in particular through the vagaries of Connecticut Transfer Act.

In connection with the approvals process, including [inaudible], I've appeared before many land use boards and governmental authorities.

When the real estate market suffered a downturn in the late '80s, I gained considerable experience in negotiating and documenting workouts of troubled loans, including many deed in lieu of foreclosure transactions.

In the course of such work I gained a breadth of experience in many matters that are frequently the subject of litigation including security interests, construction contracts, zoning matters, title disputes, environmental policies and claims, and the application and interpretation of notes, mortgages, leases and related commercial documentation.

Throughout my practice I have earned the respect of my colleagues and clients and I have acted ethically and fairly. During negotiations I've learned to listen to both sides of an issue.

I've been successful in finding sufficient common ground to allow the parties to reach an accord. I've learned and I've expressed to my clients and to opposing counsel to quote Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want but you can get what you need.

I currently reside in West Hartford with husband Jonathan Olear, a teacher and financial aid administrator at the Watkinson School in Hartford.

I have two teenage sons, Nick and Grant, and they attend the Watkinson School. I do want to point out one matter for consistency. The release that came out said that I was 49. That's not true. I'm 51.

While practicing law and raising my family, I've enjoyed community involvement and public service activities. I've volunteered for various activities such as being an officer of the School Board of St. Thomas the Apostle School.

I'm a member of the Martin Luther King Housing Board and a member of the Board of the Real Estate Finance Association. I was a corporator and later a member of the Board of Trustees of the Hartford Seminary.

After appointment by former Governor Rowland, I served as the Director of the State Insurance Risk Management Board for seven years.

In November 2004 I had the honor to be appointed by Governor Rell to the Board of Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. In December 2004 I was appointed Interim Chair.

I've appeared before some of you when I testified before the Executive and Legislative Nomination Committee in April 2005 and I was subsequently confirmed as Chairperson of the Authority. Since CHFA I have been involved in many affordable housing issues.

I found that one of the missions of CHFA is that it came to an important role of our judicial system in that all persons should have access to fairness and justice as the case may be without regard to economic status, race or creed.

I believe that every person is a sum total of their experiences. I have confidence that if confirmed I will be able to utilize my professional and personal experiences to be a fair and impartial judge.

It is truly an honor to be considered for appointment to the Bench. Thank you and I welcome any questions that you may have.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you. It sounds like it would be fair to conclude that you have not spent a lot of time in the criminal courts at least.

LESLIE OLEAR: That would be a fair conclusion, yes.

REP. LAWLOR: And you understand that all potential judges come to the job with unique experiences and expertise and training. And there are quite a few who come into the job without any real experience in the criminal courts.

But normally, if you are approved, your first stop would be a very busy criminal court. That's just the way it is.

And I think it is fair to say that when we get judges coming back after eight years, many times they tell us that it was very much an eye opening experience because it is really there that you find out how much power a judge really does have on a day to day basis.

And many of the decisions that you will making effect in a very real way, not just the liberty of people, but how they view the criminal justice system.

Because you see in the court it is very hard to get in front of a judge quickly. But in criminal court it's very easy. And so I'm wondering if you've given any thought to how you'll react when it's your job to make decisions on the amount of bail.

Or whether or not someone will be sentenced to prison or motions that will be filed on their behalf in a variety of ways. I mean, have you thought about that? And what if anything--

LESLIE OLEAR: Of course I have. I've given it a lot thought. And I fully expect to be assigned to a GA and serve in a busy and I think bizarre, not bazaar, location.

I think that I will be prepared for doing that. I think that I'm very good at thinking on my feet and I expect that I will be able to adapt. I'm looking forward to it in fact.

And when I got out of law school I wanted initially to do criminal. It wasn't easy to get a legal job in the early '80s.

And I ended up with the job that I have and my career has taken me the way that it has. But I fully expect to serve in a GA and I'm looking forward to it.

REP. LAWLOR: I guess it requires an unusual combination of skills and approach because on the one hand you're required to make rapid-fire decisions, each of which is very significant obviously.

On the other hand, the pace of the court, you'd be dropped into a court where it has its own sort of culture. You know the prosecutors, and the public defenders and the staff are all kind of accustomed to doing things their way.

And I'm sure [inaudible] like most, where you'd be telling, here's the way we did it here and we just did this. Just sign that and sometimes it will be your job to slow the process down.

And risk offending some people that you're asking a question or questioning something that the prosecutor and the defense attorney may have already agreed to.

But do you feel comfortable challenging people like that? That you may have to tell them to stop, explain things to you, or it's happening too fast for your own preferences for you to make an educate decision. Do you think that you'll be able to do that?

LESLIE OLEAR: Yes, I do think that I'll be able to do that. I fully expect that there will be times that I will have to do that. I understand that there's a press to get cases moving.

I also understand that there's a need to act fairly and judiciously. And I will do whatever I need to do to behave in such a manner.

REP. LAWLOR: And you heard the other questions about crime victims when they show up in court. And you know they're caught up in the shuffle oftentimes.

And they don't have a negotiating stake really in this bizarre atmosphere. Right where prosecutors and defense attorneys are wheeling and dealing all of the time.

Do you understand that it is really your responsibility at the judge, as the judge, to make sure that everybody's rights are respected, including crime victim's rights?

Because it's the easiest one to overlook because they don't have an advocate, or a lawyer at least, as a party to the case. They're in the process.

Do you understand that's something that we get complaints about a lot and it's really your responsibility to understand the Constitutional rights and give them life in the courtroom? You understand that right?

LESLIE OLEAR: I do understand that and obviously as I've been sitting here today I've heard a lot of discussion about it. And I do understand that the victims have a right to be heard.

And if it comes before me and I learn that the victim hasn't had a right to be heard then it's going to be incumbent upon me to make sure that they do.

And that may end up in a continuance. That may end up in a delay in that case if it hasn't happened yet. And I know that I'll be pressured to move cases along.

But if the victim hasn't had an opportunity to be heard, then that case will have to move aside and another case will have to take it's place.

REP. LAWLOR: And the other topic you've heard discussed is that I have raised, is the other sort of tumultuous area of the courts. It sounds like you haven't had a lot of experience e there either, that's the family court, right?

LESLIE OLEAR: Right.

REP. LAWLOR: And emotions can be even higher there, as it turns out, more so than the criminal courts. And so, you've heard this once concern.

You know, forget about your philosophical opinion, or maybe you'd care to volunteer it, I'm not sure.

But we do get a lot of complaints that people always perceive the courts are not fair to fathers and husbands and men in general in the family context. There's a predisposition to award child custody to mothers and wives and things like that.

And so, what if anything do you think about that topic and how do you view the role of a judge in ensuring that people feel that they got a fair shake, that there interests and concerns are taken fairly into consideration.

LESLIE OLEAR: I think that, I understand that there may be some legislation pending in that regard. And certainly fathers, as well as mothers have an opportunity to be heard.

I think it's incumbent on the judge to make sure that every person involved in a proceeding has a right to be heard.

And it's of primary importance that they think that they've been heard and that it's been a fair hearing and nobody has been prejudiced one way or the other. I think times are changing. I think that fathers will.

Custody is becoming more and more of a commonplace occurrence and I think that whatever is in the best of the child and whatever can work out for the family. There's nothing worse than a family problem.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you very much and congratulations--

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you. Thank you, Representative.

REP. LAWLOR: Senator Gomes and then Representative Farr.

SEN. GOMES: this is something unusual that I'm going to say. But I see that you have no experience in a criminal background and no experience in the family area.

I'm wondering if this good or maybe it was bad in choosing you for the criminal courts or if it's good. We have lawyers that are in the criminal field that come with their hardened attitudes and their opinions about what should be done and the gristmill slowed up thing.

We're wondering if somebody like you going into the courts might be a change and something good for the courts. I'd like to know what is your position on what some of the things we've been talking about, especially on the plea-bargaining issue.

Do you think that plea bargaining is, well, if you know anything the criminal courts, is it in your opinion a method of giving somebody a fair break in court or is it just sort of a gristmill, you're in and you're out of here? You either take this or this is what you're going to get.

LESLIE OLEAR: Well, obviously, I have very limited experience. But from my understanding it is the obligation of a judge to state to the defendant what the maximum sentence is that they're facing so that they can make an educated decision about whether or not to take a plea.

And I honestly don't feel like I could comment at this time as to whether or not I think it's in terms of a gristmill to pass things through or if it's a fair and effective way of meting out justice.

SEN. GOMES: Thank you.

REP. FARR: Attorney Olear, I just wanted to welcome you here today. You obviously have a good educational background and a lot of experience in some pretty sophisticated legal issues.

I think the challenge will be that you haven't had as much court time as we would like to see. But I think that you know, in my experience, people, we have a court system that allows for people to get a lot experience in areas that they've never practiced before.

And in some ways actually flourish under those conditions. We've had people who've never done family, get assigned to family and find that's something that they can handle.

Or get assigned to criminal and so, it is always a learning experience for judges and I want to congratulate you on your nomination today.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you, Senator.

REP. LAWLOR: She's got geographic qualifications. Representative Barry.

REP. BARRY: thank you very much for appearing before us today. I am impressed by, as Representative Farr said, by your academic background. And the information that you submitted to us, to this Committee. I just had a few questions. I just wanted to ask you, you know, you indicated here. First of all, I note that you've been at the same firm for 25 years and that's--

LESLIE OLEAR: Very unusual.

REP. BARRY: Yeah, so [inaudible]. You've got a lot of experience with, on community boards and other public offices and so you've put a lot of time into things other than just your, strictly your profession and helping in a civic capacity.

I noticed that you've not regularly appeared in court. I know that you mentioned that in your opening statement. It would be fair to say that you haven't regularly appeared in court in the last, in your entire practice for the last five years.

LESLIE OLEAR: Well, certainly not in a great bulk of my 25-year practice. I did appear in a court when I was a young associate, but that was a while ago.

REP. BARRY: And that was limited to housing and probate you mentioned?

LESLIE OLEAR: Housing, foreclosure matters. It was all on the commercial civil side, no criminal.

REP. BARRY: And actually, someone testifying, a nominee testifying before had mentioned that they had had some, not training, but they had visited some courthouses prior to today. Had watched some judges in action. Have you had the opportunity to do that?

LESLIE OLEAR: I've been in court. I can't say that I went specifically as a result of this hearing coming up. I do go to court for my clients. I'm not however, the one that's first chair.

I don't sign the pleadings. But when a case, when my clients are involved in a case, whether they're the plaintiff or the defendant, I'm involved from the beginning to the end.

In a small firm like mine, you work closely with your litigation partners. So I'm quite familiar--

REP. BARRY: Were you ever [inaudible]

LESLIE OLEAR: [inaudible] now, 15.

REP. BARRY: How many cases have you second chaired? Have you second chaired a case before?

LESLIE OLEAR: I don't even know if I'd call it second chair, because I was really with my clients. I wasn't sitting at the table. But you know, 15 maybe, over the course of my career.

REP. BARRY: Okay, so you would have judges, lawyers that, litigation attorneys in your firm that would be first and second chairing a trial and then you'd be the expert in a particular area with respect to that client's issues advising the litigation attorneys as to how to proceed in the trial.

LESLIE OLEAR: We would be doing strategy, you know. Frankly, what we spend most of our time with is trying to avoid litigation.

And we try and get clients to reach a settlement that works for everybody's benefit in a civil matter. So I would be intimately involved in all of those details.

REP. BARRY: I see in your, we asked for some of your most significant litigated matters that you've handled. And you mentioned that you had a supervisory role/responsible for oversight, including [inaudible] and [inaudible] and responses and pleadings.

And you mentioned that you did not sign the pleadings. And there are a number of cases. There's like, it looks like there are six cases that are pretty heavy-duty cases that appears to me that are pretty sophisticated cases.

What, did you have, when you say supervisory role, are these over associate litigation attorneys or--

LESLIE OLEAR: Sometimes. Sometimes it's partners. I mean, there are times that they'll drop to pleading and then maybe it's supervisory and [inaudible].

You'd go over it and say what about this, what about that? Did you think about bringing this kind of a claim?

REP. BARRY: And then responses in pleadings. Are you, do you have experience in determining, helping with strategy in terms of what actual Practice Book sections to invoke when you're responding to a particular complaint.

And you're deciding as a group of attorneys to decide how to respond to that complaint, whether to move to strike a portion of it, or to file a motion to dismiss, a motion for a summary judgment, or some other responsive plea. Are you involved in those decisions?

LESLIE OLEAR: I'm involved in the strategy of whether or not it's appropriate or whether or not we think that we can go for summary judgment. Do we think that there aren't any facts that are in dispute?

Can we stipulate to them in order to get a decision just on the law? I work on that. I won't work so much on the day-to-day, you know, move to failure to appear, or things like that. That's handled more strictly by my litigation group.

REP. BARRY: And then the, I can understand you being involved with the content in the form [inaudible] probably. And then with respect to evidentiary issues, do you have a, are you involved in determining, when you go to trial you try and figure out how to get documents into evidence and so forth?

LESLIE OLEAR: Not really. No.

REP. BARRY: Okay. So most of the cases that you've cited, these six cases here, I guess it would be fair to say that you have a role in this, you've had a role in this, in these litigation matters. But you were not the supervising litigation attorney in these matters.

LESLIE OLEAR: That's correct.

REP. BARRY: Okay. And I guess just one final question is, what is it about your experience as a practicing attorney for 25 years, with a very good, a very good reputation and being, like I said, being at the same firm for 25 years.

Obviously, you probably have a great demeanor, you've probably got the, tremendous intelligence and capacity for resolving legal issues and especially like you say, resolving them short of protractive litigation that is unnecessary. Which is a big, which is a big consideration. What is it about your experience that you believe would make you a great judge?

LESLIE OLEAR: I think I'm very pragmatic. I learned a lot when I went to a, I think I mentioned it. I went to a program on negotiation. And I think I'm a good negotiator.

I think that that would help me a lot. Because I think that even the cases that do go to trial, do reach court don't usually, on the civil side, in a judgment. So I think that I would be able to facilitate negotiations on the civil side. I also think that my experience will transfer over.

REP. BARRY: Thanks very much.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. But first, how are you doing?

LESLIE OLEAR: Great, thank you.

REP. DYSON: Good to see you here. I think we have something in common [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 3B to Tape 4A.]

--let me tell you what it is. And everyone's ears are perked up now. What the heck is that you have in common with her? I think you have a couple of children.

LESLIE OLEAR: Yes, I do.

REP. DYSON: And I think they've had the benefit of services across this across this street at the Capital Child Development Center.

LESLIE OLEAR: Yes we have. And to be honest with you, whenever anyone compliments me on their manners, which, they're 18 and 16 now, so it doesn't happen a lot. I credit the Capital Child Development Center.

REP. DYSON: What I want you to know that we work long and hard to bring the quality of service so that people would have a place to take their young people and see them grow in a fashion that they could be proud of. So that's our commonality. I happen to be the Chair of the Board over there.

LESLIE OLEAR: I recall that.

REP. DYSON: Everybody satisfied now? You can relax. Now the next thing I want to do is, we receive a lot of questions about the issue of disparity in the system and the concern that I have about whether the judicial system.

Do you think it should be proactive and what do you see as a remedy for dealing with the problem of disparity that's been talked about with all of the other candidates that have come before us?

LESLIE OLEAR: I think whenever there is disparity or disproportionality, that all persons need to be concerned about that. Obviously, I think the judicial branch is included in that.

I can assure you that, if confirmed, I will do my best to certainly, on a trial judge basis, to be fair, impartial, colorblind and to the extent permissible, I'll advocate within the judicial system for the treatment for all people in that manner.

REP. DYSON: And Judge Lavery has talked about a need for additional resources, especially as it relates to the issue of disparity and how you might be able to deal with some of that, and as I mentioned, juries and how you deal with all of that.

There are a bunch of issues out there that need to be dealt with. And the people that best know that are people who are experiencing that day to day.

And they're not inclined to speak out about it in the likelihood that the disparity will continue because they feel compelled to do anything about it.

So I'm just trying to make known that very fact that what we've known for a long time. [Inaudible] you said that Attorney Keefe wrote about it 10 years ago in a law journal or something.

And so it's not something that is a mystery to a lot of people. Yet, here we are 10 years later, if not longer, talking about the same things. [inaudible] what's going on.

Injustices there, the perception that the injustice being there, and what do we do to alter that or change it in some way?

I think it's most critical that we do that and that's my reason for making this question and something that I put to everyone that comes here.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you. And I think that a dialogue on these issues is certainly appropriate. And when disparate treatment is known, I think everyone has an obligation to speak about it, as well as do something about it.

REP. DYSON: Thank you.

LESLIE OLEAR: You're welcome. Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: I just want to follow up on, maybe have you expand on your believe that you would do your job and see what you do and see the people that you work with, defendants possibly, based on follow-up on Representative Dyson's question.

And you would have a colorblind look. Can you expand on the, you really think the system, in that all individuals should see the system as colorblind.

Is that what you believe happens now? And how would you, explain to me how would you avoid not seeing the person right in front of you and making some judgment about that person. Do you think that the courses and works quote is colorblind way?

LESLIE OLEAR: I don't know, frankly at this time if the judicial system works that way. I mean, obviously I've read the Commission's report. It's certainly troubling.

Which would lend credence I suppose to the fact that certainly the perception that it doesn't operate that way. All I can do is assure you is that I will do my best to operate that way.

And how is it done. I think that by looking at everyone and offering them a fair opportunity to be heard.

REP. GREEN: If I want to find out, or let me ask you this. If as a judge, and you want to be proactive, and you're looking at the system and you're acting in a colorblind way, how would we know whether or not.

There might be some differences if we're not looking at color. If you had 10 defendants, and you're not looking at color, you find out that seven of the ones that were sentenced to a more harsher sentence were African Americans.

Your argument is that well, if it was presented before me, it was colorblind. How do we address what the perception and the reality that there's disparaging treatment if we take that notion and then we take your research, looking at your cases, how do we begin to address that because we won't be looking at that.

LESLIE OLEAR: I think that you will be looking at it with respect to the system as a whole. Clearly the work that's been done and the study that's been done and I know one of the recommendations is for more study.

It obviously, the investigation is not colorblind. Otherwise it would be meaningless. I think I'm understanding your question right.

So I think clearly, in terms of studying the disparate treatment, and looking for ways to remedy it, that clearly cannot be colorblind.

But in terms of the trial courts obligation of offering justice to all person, clearly I think it is incumbent on any judge to do the best that he or she can to look at each person individually and without regard to their economic status, race or creed and just go on the basis of the facts and the law that's presented to them at that time.

REP. GREEN: I guess I would be concerned because I think most, if not all of new candidates and those coming for reappointment will say your view, that that's the way they look at.

But the reality is that this has happened. And so if anybody is operating that way and then the results are this, at what point do, I'm just not sure how we address it if everybody says, well, I'm not doing it, it's not happening here.

But it's happening in the state, so it's happening. I guess I would be concerned because right or wrong.

And I'm not even going to make a judgment about this, but the reality seems to be that race, class, has some clear impacts on the criminal justice system in terms of who gets arrested and who gets sentenced, how much sentencing.

So I'm not sure if we say that the reality is that we ignore that. The research does not bear out that we ignore that.

I mean we can look at who gets sentenced and who is in that jail [inaudible] sentencing and we can see clear indications of race and class.

And they may have to deal with labor representation and all of that other kind of stuff. So I think we have to look at it seriously.

And believe that we just don't deal with it because people are being fair and looking at individuals and stuff. So I appreciate your answers. Thank you.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Is there anything further from Members of the Committee? If not, thank you very much.

LESLIE OLEAR: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: Next is Attorney Kevin Randolph of Glastonbury. Good afternoon/evening. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Please have a seat and welcome. And we appreciate your patience and attention, and now you have ours.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Thank you. Good evening Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, and Members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Kevin Randolph and it is with great honor that I am here as one of Governor Rell's nominees for Superior Court judgeship. I grew up in New York City.

My father was a policeman. My mother was a secretary. I attended Xavier High School in Manhattan where I graduated as Deputy Regimental Commander of the Xavier ROTC Regiment.

I attended Wesleyan University and received my BA as a Spanish major. I then attended Syracuse University where I graduated with a Masters degree in telecommunications.

I attended Western New England College School of Law where I was a member of the National Moot Court Team. And after graduation, in 1989, I worked a short time as a lobbyist and then took an offer from the Public Defenders Office.

I worked for the Office of the Public Defender from 1990 until 1995. And then I went into private practice. I worked for about one year for the firm Jackson Lewis, which is a large employment law firm. And I then opened my own office in 1996.

The largest segment of my practice of criminal law, I have tried about 30 cases to verdict, including 11 murder trials, three of which were death penalty cases.

I handle many federal criminal cases and am a member of the Federal Criminal Justice Advisory Committee.

I'm also a member of the Criminal Justice Act Standing Committee, which reviews the qualifications of attorneys who desire to practice criminal law under the Federal Criminal Justice Act.

In 2004, the federal district court judges asked me to chair the Merit Selection Panel for the reappointment of Federal Magistrate Judge Thomas Smith.

Now outside of the criminal arena, I'm an arbitrator representing the interests of the public and teacher contract arbitration under Connecticut General Statute Section 10-186.

I also serve as a hearing officer for the State Department of Education in residency, transportation and expulsion matters.

This year my wife and I will celebrate our 25^th wedding anniversary. She is a physician with officers in Mansfield Center and Wallingford. We have one son, John. Both of them are here. He's a junior in high school and he's a pretty good violinist.

I again am greatly honored by Governor Rell's nomination. I appreciate your patience and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: What would make him a great violinist?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I think his teacher's assessment, which is objective.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY: thank you. I want to welcome you here. We have spoken in the past and I want to comment, not on our patience, but on your son's patience. It's been a long day.

You've had a lot of experience as a defense lawyer and most, I'm not. I've been in court I think once in my life. Now [inaudible] criminal charges, I guess I might want to say.

And many of the folks who have been here today and on other occasions have had experience on the prosecutor's side. It seems to me that a great man people who appear before us have that kind of experience.

Would you like to talk a little bit about why you think your experience as a defense lawyer, which is pretty unique in terms of my brief experience on this Committee. Why you think this makes you a particularly qualified to serve on the Court?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Thank you Senator. I think Senator that the experience as a trial lawyer will aid me in becoming a judge which can hopefully can inspire confidence in the impartiality and the independence of the Judiciary.

When you try cases you have an opportunity to see the end of the process. So that everything leading up to the end of the process you have an understanding of.

And I think that if not just the experience as a defense attorney, but a trial experience as a defense attorney that will immeasurably aid me in fulfilling my obligations as a judge, if the Committee approves me.

SEN. HANDLEY: I just had one other question and that is dealing with your Spanish major. Have you continued to read and speak Spanish?

I think the reading is much easier now because I just don't practice. It has fallen into desuetude as it could be said. But no, I don't speak Spanish on a regular basis. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Mr. Randolph, let me just ask you a couple of questions. I think you said that you tried 30-plus cases to jury verdict?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: About 30 cases to verdict.

SEN. MCDONALD: Over how long a period of time are we talking about?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Approximately 16 years, Senator.

SEN. MCDONALD: And are they all in the criminal context?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: They are all in the criminal context.

SEN. MCDONALD: And roughly 50/50 between state and federal court?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: While I used the 50/50 percentage because the cases that I've had in State Court, in the last couple of years, have been death penalty cases and as a percentage of the time it takes to try those cases, I would say 50% spent on those cases, 50% spent on, still lengthy but shorter, federal cases.

SEN. MCDONALD: And of the 30 cases that were tried to a verdict, how many of those cases were you either lead or sole counsel on?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: All.

SEN. MCDONALD: All of them. Pretty hefty load.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I'm sorry, minus one.

SEN. MCDONALD: Ahhh. And you should have been leading counsel on that right? Let me ask you, in your questionnaire you noted for us an appearance at some point before the Grievance Committee of the Bar. Would you tell us a little bit more about that? First of all, when was it?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I believe that was in the year 2000. And I represented a client on a matter in which I secured a dismissal. And in my zeal to help promote my practice, I reported that dismissal to a community newspaper.

And I was found in violation for having done that because I didn't secure the client's permission to disclose the disposition of the case publicly. I wasn't reprimanded, I was just told to take an ethics course.

SEN. MCDONALD: Did you take that course?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes.

SEN. MCDONALD: And there is other documentation in the file indicating that there is something to do with Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Is that the same claim?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: No, I think for defense counsel, those are common. Those are claims in which clients assess that their attorney did not represent them fully and effectively. I can tell you about more than one that I have.

SEN. MCDONALD: And so with that said, with a Habeas Petition.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: A Habeas Petition.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. Unfortunately, you're right. There's a lot of those claims in Habeas Petitions.

Now when, I guess, one of the challenges of any nominee who has such vast experience in one area as you have, is the dearth of experience in every other area.

So it's one of the things that frankly we have to weigh. We don't get to select judges to be criminal court judges.

We get to select judges to be judges. And then we rely on the Chief court Administrator to determine where and when that judge will sit, and what cases.

And frankly, I think over time there's been a sense that every judge needs to spend some time in pretty much every area.

So how would you fill in those gaps for lack of knowledge or experience in civil litigation or in family litigation or housing law, the list goes on.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I commented on the vast majority of the cases that I've handled. However, I have pending a number of civil cases in, I shouldn't say a number, but in federal court and in state court, employment litigation, slip-and-fall litigation.

And I didn't comment on that because that doesn't constitute a substantial portion of my practice. Another portion of my practice that had begun to blossom as the arbitration area.

And quite frankly I was looking for an opportunity to expand beyond just the criminal practice. So I do have experience with civil practice and I do not have much experience in family matters.

I would think that any judge would also always want to be a student of the law at all times, so I don't see that as a problem. If I'm asked to sit in family court, or juvenile court, or in civil court. I think it's important to become a student of the law in whatever you do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay. And when, well, actually let me ask you, having had experience in both the state court system and the federal court system, they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Is there anything that we in the state system should be gleaning on the criminal side from the federal court system that you have experienced it to be particularly useful in the administration of justice?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I can respond to that Senator based on my experience. In that, in the federal system, the volume is much lighter than in the state system.

I think though that volume shouldn't necessarily dictate how a lawyer practices. If you're in a culture and the dynamic where moving cases is what you intend to do when you come into the courthouse in the morning, then you're going to act like that.

And that's going to be transmitted to your clients, that I want to move the cases. I've got 15 files. When you meet a client and let's say you're working for the Public Defender's Office, you're usually not meeting that client with that client's file.

You're meeting that client with 15 files. So the culture is such that you're in a rush. And you know you're only going to have 90 seconds to talk to the prosecutor about you're your 35 files, 90 seconds each.

So when you come into the courthouse, it's not incumbent upon really the defense counsel, and I'll have to use my experience to make sure that you're keeping up with the speed of let's say, the Public Defenders Office.

And I think the quality of representation in the federal system reflects the fact that they're not on a treadmill. And I don't think lawyers practicing in the state system need to be on a treadmill in order to be effective and efficient.

So I would borrow maybe the pace from the federal system and, really, this is sort of instruction to lawyers, that that pace is not in the law.

You don't have to run in order to say that you're doing your job. In fact, many times, you can't do your job on the run.

You're going to have to slow down and make sure that one, your client knows that you're interested in his or her case. And two, you're going to have to know the law.

SEN. MCDONALD: I appreciate the answer and I guess the, it's a challenge that you probably experienced first hand, when you are in a GA and the files are piling up around you.

I don't know if it is such a lawyer's job as it is a judge's job. And I don't know how you accomplish what I agree to be the goal with the reality of the circumstances that you might find yourself in, in presiding over that type of docket.

And so I'm just trying to figure out how you can reconcile the goal with the reality of what you might face in a GA court with that kind of docket, which is a much heavier docket as you note.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I've had an opportunity Senator to handle a heavy docket as a public defender. I worked out of a courthouse that could not really be compared to Hartford, Hew haven or Bridgeport.

I worked out of the Middletown GA for a number of years. And I think that in that system, which again is going to involve what we talk bout as plea-bargaining.

The lawyer, I believe, has a lot of control over the speed of the docket. And I just respectfully would indicate that. Because the lawyer in that system and the prosecutor handle the negotiations and the judge is not involved.

And I would think that, and I hold this to be true as a result of my experience. I think that a lot of the speed of the docket does fall on the lawyers if they are working within the system where they are negotiating and the judge is not involved.

Of course, there may be a different dynamic when you're getting what is called on mosque situation where the judge presides over the pretrial.

And the judge is really moving the docket because he is conducting all of the pre-trials at the same time. So I think there are different systems and the systems determine how fast the docket can move.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you. Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony and thoughtful responses. Congratulations on your nomination.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: I just had a couple of questions, sort of in follow up to Senator McDonald's. But a couple of background questions first.

You discussed the volume and the pace within the, working within the public defender service. Did you leave the public defender service so that you could fashion your won approach to the files more?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well I went from a GA courthouse in Middletown to the Hartford JD where there was less volume but more serious cases, more cases that had to be tried. And that was just an effort to try more serious cases, as professional development.

REP. SPALLONE: And then did you, then left though to for private practice. Is that because of the atmosphere or just a different challenge that you wanted to go into private practice and try your hand at that?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: It's really a matter of a different challenge. I thought that after having tried a certain number of murder cases that I wanted to expand my opportunity to learn more about the law and so I decided to just get out of the criminal arena all together. And go into civil practice, private practice.

REP. SPALLONE: Since '96 you've been a solo practitioner?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes, correct.

REP. SPALLONE: Do you do any work as a special public defender in the state system or appointed in the federal system?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I did death penalty cases in the state system and death penalty cases in the federal system under the CGJA Act. Yes.

REP. SPALLONE: Now I recall you did mention, I think you answered a question about the CGJA Act earlier. Sorry about that, I missed that. Senator McDonald was asking you about the pace of the practice and the amount of cases, particularly in our state GA courts.

You talked, you mentioned the importance as an attorney of making sure that the case moves at a pace that's appropriate for your clients interests.

As a judge, how would you respond to perhaps the pressure from the presiding judge, the administrative judge to move your cases along toward disposition?

And balance that with the interests of substantial justice for the defendants, the victims and the people of the State of Connecticut?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Representative, I have a good idea of how long it takes to work up a case, for lack of a better term, and how long it would take for an investigation, and how long it would take for research.

So if I am working, if I'm looking at a docket, and the docket is full of cases that are misdemeanors, operating under suspension, DWI.

I know those cases don't take 45 days to work up. So I have a sense of how long a case should take to work up before a decision or disposition should be considered.

REP. SPALLONE: In other words, you could apply your experience to determine which cases legitimately need a little more time to get to the bottom of and which cases would really be resolved.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct.

REP. SPALLONE: Okay. This is a question. Based on your. I can tell you've been thinking about this and you give thoughtful answers about the process.

Do you think that one of the differences between the way that the courtroom operates in the federal system compared to the state system is it at least the perception if not the reality that the state's attorneys seem to run the courtroom. When they're ready, you proceed. They're at the box, at the front of the courtroom. They have their bucket of files.

They call the names and the people come forward, rather than a judge or a clerk. This is kind of out of left field, it's an unusual question.

But do you think that that might be something to think about the way that our courtrooms are perceived to operate? And also in terms of perception for issues of disparity for wealth, class or race.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Representative, my experience in the federal system is that there are very few court dates. And what I mean by that is not that cases are disposed of quickly, but the court dates are set by counsel if and when something is going to be done.

So most of the contact that I have with my clients in the federal system may be on the phone or in the office. In the state system, every court date requires essentially the defendant's appearance.

Sometimes things happen, sometimes things don't happen. And I think it's the solemnity of the form in the federal system that impresses the criminal defendants.

And maybe the lack of such solemnity in the state system. And I also think that the acronyms FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals, that strikes fear in the hearts of a lot of people. And in the federal system you don't have to, the judges don't have to yell.

The marshals don't have to be abusive. But it's just the aura of the federal system I think is impressed upon people who appear there.

And many people are accused of the crimes of let's say conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics in the federal system are not held on bond.

But I haven't seen a situation where someone failed to appear. And the reason I believe, is just that their perception, whether it's from film, whether it's from television or whether it's from talk, that you know, this is not the state system.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you again for your responses. Again, congratulations and best wishes to you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

SEN. MCDONALD: Are there other questions? [inaudible - microphone not on]

REP. DYSON: How are you doing? Good to see you, Sir.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Good, Sir. Thank you.

REP. DYSON: I've posed a question to all members who've preceded you. And I'll pose the same question to you regarding the issue of disparity and whether you think the judicial system ought to be proactive.

And what do you see as a potential remedy to deal with the issue of disparity that has been commented on by others who preceded you, has been around for a while.

And here we are today still confronted with the same issue of disparity. And having the need to find a resolution on the issue. What is it that we need to do and do you think the system should be proactive in terms of dealing with that?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Thank you, Representative. I've had quite a significant opportunity to give that some thought. And again I'm going to draw on some experience. And I'd like to just tell a short story if I could.

I attended Western University from 1976 to 1980. And I was a public defender in Middletown from 1990 until about 1994.

And I noticed that a number of the arrests that were made in the Middletown area were on charges of possession of narcotics, possession with intent, with regards to the people who live in Middletown.

And up until recently, I hadn't given this a lot of thought, but I noticed that I've never seen a Wesleyan student in GA 9 or in a possession, or possession with intent charge.

I'd never heard of it, in about eight years. So, disparity begins I think at the law enforcement level.

Once you reach the doors of the courthouse, you're looking in the courtroom to see whether there is disparity, but I think that any honest citizen is going to question is there no investigation at Wesleyan University.

Now that's my alma mater. I love my alma mater. But you can't look at that and say there is no disparity, but it starts before you get to the courthouse door.

Once you get to the courthouse, I think the level and the quality of legal representation affects the perception of disparity. And what I mean by that is, I know you're interested in, questions have come up in regard to plea-bargaining.

But there are different types of things that can happen in plea-bargaining. One is you go in and just try to tell a good story to garner sympathy from the prosecutor.

And the other could be bringing in the Connecticut General Statutes saying that you have element A, element B, but you can't satisfy element C of this charge and you have a constitutional problem with the search.

The quality of the legal representation has an effect on disparity. Because if you're just telling stories with the prosecutor and trying to evoke sympathy, that's not the same level of quality legal representation as telling the prosecutor that you don't have element A, then you have constitutional problem.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. Now what I have done, I appreciate your response. What I have done today is that I've been thinking about a remedy myself. And I will just lay this out.

I have heard over and over about the need to dispense with or move the calendar along, the docket. But it seems to be a vast numbers that the system is confronted with.

I know that the analogy between the state system and the federal system, that you don't have as much. And I recognize the aura that you describe as to why you don't have the issue of people not appearing.

And then I began to ask myself the question, is the judicial system in this state shortchanged in terms of our requiring those judges who sit to perform a Herculean task to get rid of dockets.

To dispense justice. And really not provide them with the resources to do that. So that means then you have to ask the question, are there enough judges?

Is there enough staff to deal with this influx, these vast numbers and the like? And now the other question becomes who is the advocate for more judges?

Who is to be the one to speak out about more resources that are needed in the system? And if all of us remain silent on the issue, then the numbers can build and we try to demonstrate success by being able to move it along.

And somewhere in the midst there, justice dies a magnificent death because of something that we don't do here. And we don't get any advocates on behalf of what needs to be. I'll end with this.

I have had the benefit of being in court. My son was in federal court and it is so likely a ghost chamber. Not many people around. When I go across the street to state court just because I want to be nosy, and it is like a mob of people in there.

And in the midst of all of that, there is supposed to be the dispensing of justice. And there seems to be a shortchange, a shortchange here. And no one is advocating.

No is advocating that justice, if it means anything, ought to be about the business of making sure the resources are there to make sure justice is rendered to everybody. You should get it.

In the meantime, because we don't, maybe that's why we end up with disparity. I agree with, when we get to the court door, it's probably been carved in stone by then.

The issue has been set. And I don't think it is just the judicial system that should bear the brunt of this. It's that entire continuum from the police to the court to the corrections system, the whole gamut is involved.

And we need to be asking ourselves some questions about how we find the remedy. And that was a sermon from me, you don't need to respond to that. Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you. Senator Gomes. I'm sorry, Representative Green I think was next. I apologize.

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions. You answered satisfactorily to me the issue about going in front of the Grievance, but Senator McDonald asked something and I guess I just want to know the process.

You said that it indicated that this Habeas, and my good friend, attorney, and Senator Coleman explained to me this whole Habeas process.

You said that you had received, you believe that lawyers kind of get those routinely--

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes.

REP. GREEN: Okay, that's the impression that I got. Apparently we did not ask that question on the statement here, because I had not seen sort of an indication of that.

I'm assuming that the course was not asked of you on this particular two-page form that I have.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I don't believe it was.

REP. GREEN: Okay. Do you, this asks. Let me understand a little bit. When you get that file, when an attorney gets that process filed against them, does that go to the level of some of these other grievances. Is that handled differently?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: No, it's not a grievance, it's a claim that the attorney should have done something that he or she did not do. And as a result of that misstep, I was convicted and wrongly sentenced.

So it's not really a civil claim, it is a claim that but for this lawyer's performance I wouldn't be serving time.

REP. GREEN: So in a sense it is not in a sense directed to the case the facts of the case, it's about whether the representation.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct.

REP. GREEN: Okay. I got interested in this word colorblind with the last person who came up. Being a person, an African American male, how might you see yourself as a judge and sort of dispensing justice?

Do you think that color is not seen by judges? Now might you handle that as a judge in terms of, what kind of parameters do you think a judge should look at when they're trying to decide a case?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well I think, Representative Green, that a judge should not have to put himself or herself in a position where he also or she also trying to do the lawyering.

And I think that if a judge sees that there is deficient lawyering, the Judge might want to bring that to the attention of let's say the supervisory public defender or the state's attorney for that judicial district.

What I believe a judge's job is confined to complying with the law and applying the law as it is written. And I also believe that a judge has to maintain impartiality and still promote the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

So as tempted as some may be to jump into a sense, maybe the lawyer's role, I think that that has to be resisted.

REP. GREEN: Do you believe that a judge should, at some point, if we're talking about being proactive, at trying to look at whether or not there is some disparity going on, race, class, geographical area, gender, whatever.

Do you think that a lawyer should try to access that in their courtroom as suggested maybe information gathering, research. And based on your answer, do you think there is any value to that?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I think, Representative Green, that when you try to make determinations about this disparity, being the judge, I think it can be very easy to miss the boat.

I think that what's apparent, or should be apparent to a judge, is essentially the nature of the charge, the person's criminal record, the person's ties to the community, with respect to bail, for instance. The person's employment record.

But I don't think that a judge is really in a position in two minutes to make a determination about disparity. However, in the situation that I talked about, it would be natural for a judge for example, why is it?

As I have asked myself, if none at Wesleyan gets arrested on possession charges but everybody from the housing project gets arrested on possession charges.

Or at least that is what I see in my courtroom. Those are legitimate questions and if I were asked to serve on a committee, exploring those issues, I would seriously consider it.

REP. GREEN: You mentioned bail. What do you think the purpose of bail is?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Constitutionally, excessive bail should not be required. Under the Connecticut General Statutes, there seems to be two purposes for bail.

One is assurance of the appearance in court. And Connecticut General Statutes, 5464A, Subsection B, Subsection 2, also the safety of any other person in the community.

Now how you interpret safety of any other person, is open to discussion. But I think those two purposes are acknowledged in the Connecticut General Statutes.

REP. GREEN: The last two questions, and they are somewhat related. I was interested in the issue of the pace of the Superior Court system and the criminal court system in Connecticut and just the pace. I was interested in whether or not you felt that the pace was different.

You talked about fast in the state. You also talked about a process of public defenders sort of going through the cases. Do you think that as a judge you would look at the pace of your court, the pace of the cases?

Or do you believe it is against something, that a judge cannot look at, they should look at, that is the way the system is.

I guess I am concerned about, if you were a sitting judge and cases were moving fast, public defenders spent, based on your own acknowledgement, they're spending about a minute-and-a-half with the prosecutor.

And then they come before you and they are moving these. Would that concern you, not concern you, what's your thoughts on that, the pace?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I suspect Representative Green that it depends on how often that is happening. You may have a day where you have people who seem to be taking advantage of a disposition that they really want to take advantage of.

But if I, quite frankly, and forgive me for being candid, if I see that let's say a public defender has been on the job for 12 years and has never tried a case, that would concern me.

So, the pace, that that person may be using, may be the pace that someone else is using. But I'm wondering if the pace of a person who hasn't tried a case in 12 years is really an effort to try and avoid trying cases or whether it's really the honest assessment of that lawyer that these cases can be disposed of, just as they are being disposed of, and the defendant is satisfied with the disposition.

REP. GREEN: Okay, this is not Senator [inaudible], so be careful if you call me Senator, he gets upset. Thank you Sir.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: Good afternoon. Just out of curiosity, you have a tremendous, have had a tremendous caseload here in terms of capital felonies. Do you do appeals on these yourself?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I do not.

REP. FARR: What about the ones that you do in private practice? You don't represent people on appeals from those?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: On federal court, I do. But on the capital felonies, the state capital felonies, I do not. And generally I do not have an appeal practice.

REP. FARR: Suppose with luck you don't have to worry about that. But when it seems that capital felonies oftentimes result in some conviction. And I guess just for everybody's information, it's a capital felony if you have people convicted in a capital felony?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Once, Representative Farr, I tried three capital felonies to verdict. And only one of those cases was a death sentence.

REP. FARR: My understanding is that every capital felony results in an automatic appeal. In addition to that there will always be a Habeas filed after that.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct.

REP. FARR: And what are the grounds, that a Habeas will always be lack of, incompetent council?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct.

REP. FARR: I mean I think you would be incompetent, the next attorney doing the appeal would be incompetent by not raising that issue on the first attorney.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: That's correct.

REP. FARR: So it's no reflection on your work as an attorney, what they're trying to do is try to figure out a way to persuade a judge that somehow you could have done a better job, and therefore there should be a new trial.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct, Representative Farr. But the kinds of cases that I have handled result in sentences that are so severe that it is common for Habeas Corpus petitions to be filed.

And the filing of a Habeas Corpus petition, the hope for the defendant is that the conviction is overturned.

So it's not really a matter of an additional explanation against the attorney. It's an effort to get the conviction overturned.

REP. FARR: Right. Just the last observation is oftentimes with our experience when we have defense counsel appointed to the Bench, that they turn out to be hanging judges.

When we have prosecutors that are appointed to the Bench, they turn out to be bleeding heart judges. It sort of reverses when they get there.

With your representing the most severe cases in the State of Connecticut, as a defense council, oh my [explicative used], you must be the worst hanging judge we ever saw.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I do hope to maintain the impartiality.

REP. FARR: I think the balance is important. Thank you.

REP. LAWLOR: Representative Berger.

REP. BERGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could just go back for a moment, I need some clarification for myself on a statement in answer to a question that you had. I believe from Representative Dyson.

And I see that you have a very strong background, and Representative Farr alluded to that in your trying of important capital felony cases.

But I need a clarification, and I will certainly give you the benefit of a doubt on this.

When the Representative was asking you questions about disparities and certainly you probably won't get too much of an argument on the fact that there are reports out there that highlight the disparities.

We're going to be looking at a bill later this evening that deals with this in a judicial sense.

But I was somewhat concerned about an answer that you had given on the reference to law enforcements ability to protect its citizens, to enforce the law, say in the Town of Middletown, or any town.

And the ability of that law enforcement agency to enforce the law, which I believe in a manner that would be colorblind.

But maybe if I'm wrong on what you stated that, you gave an example of Wesleyan University and no one appearing in the court from Wesleyan. And maybe we can, I have another question to ask you about that later.

But maybe you can give me a clarification that is it your believe that law enforcement does not necessarily look at a person if they are black or white or Hispanic or Asian, they look at that person as violating the law.

And their duty and responsibility and to protect and to serve is to arrest a person who has violated the law, no matter what color they are. Is it your belief then that that is true of what you believe law enforcement's role is?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Certainly. My father was a policeman. And that's what I wanted to be when I grew up. My comment went to whether or not there could be a perception of disparity based on whether or not it looked like there was equal enforcement in downtown Middletown and up on the Hill. And that was my only focus for that question.

REP. BERGER: So you went to Wesleyan so you're probably aware of this better than I am, but certainly knowing how law enforcement is, does Wesleyan University have their own police force?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: They have a security force, I don't know about a police force.

REP. BERGER: So if there was some type of disturbance on campus at Wesleyan University, would the security forces of Wesleyan be dispatched or would Middletown PD, to the best of your recollection be dispatched. Say if there was a dispute or fight in the dormitory?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I would never want to cross that situation off Senator, so I don't know.

REP. BERGER: I'm just trying to make a point. I believe that if there was some type of infraction within Wesleyan's grounds, being the private nature of a private institution that it would be within the jurisdiction of either the Wesleyan Security or the Wesleyan police force, and maybe not in the jurisdiction of the police force of Middletown unless it were a more egregious crime.

So maybe the reason why some of those cases would not be moving forward, because they would be handled internally, and I didn't know if you had any knowledge of that in a parochial sense.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I don't.

REP. BERGER: Okay, thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Stone.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations, Attorney Randolph, on your nomination. You list in your application that you were with the Public Defender's Office from 1990 to 1995?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Correct.

REP. STONE: And part of that time was in Middletown?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes.

REP. STONE: And where was the balance of that--

KEVIN RANDOLPH: In Hartford.

REP. STONE: In Hartford?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes, Sir.

REP. STONE: How long were you in Hartford?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: About 14 months.

REP. STONE: And prior to that you were with the Connecticut CBIA, what were you doing for them?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I was a lobbyist for one session.

REP. STONE: And with Jackson Lewis for a year--

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Employment law.

REP. STONE: Employment law?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes.

REP. STONE: In your role as a public defender, and I guess you also have some exposure to the federal criminal system too, also correct?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Yes.

REP. STONE: Would you say that there are more or less cases handled by the state court system, criminal court system than by the federal court system?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Much lower by the state court system.

REP. STONE: And I happen to agree [inaudible]. As to your work as a public defender you would be in court almost every day?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Every day.

REP. STONE: And most arraignment, for example, an arraignment docket is usually handled in the morning, is that correct.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well it worked a little differently in Middletown when I was there. You handled your pretrial and you had an assigned day to handle arraignments, or you were assigned arraignment clients. So every day you did arraignments and every day you did pre-trials.

REP. STONE: And how is it handled differently in Hartford?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well, I work in the JD in Hartford. The arraignments were essentially done at the GA level and then the cases are transferred upstairs.

REP. STONE: You get the more serious cases in the [inaudible]. And when I [inaudible] that you spend most of the time, I mean physically you're in the courtroom for not only considering your cases or on behalf of your clients but most of the day was spent physically in the courtroom--

KEVIN RANDOLPH: In the courtroom.

REP. STONE: All right. I asked the question earlier of one of the other nominees regarding your role as a public defender and as an officer of the court.

Obviously if you saw that one of your client's constitutional rights were thrown into question or being jeopardized, I would assume that as an advocate that you'd voice that to the court or to the state's attorney, or what have you. Would that be correct?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I did hear that question when you asked it earlier. Usually the constitutional issues that arise in a case, don't all arise in the courtroom.

You bring them up to the prosecution indicating that I think you have a constitutional problem with this aspect of the case.

And I'm trying to get a grasp of the question, whether or not there is a constitutional violation in the courtroom while the matter is being heard. Is that--

REP. STONE: I'm not asking you whether you've ever seen that occur, I'm asking you that if that were to occur, would you as an officer of the court, or as a public defender, have an obligation to bring that to the court's attention?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: The best way for me to try and handle that question is, for example, if my client decided to plead guilty and my client was canvassed, in other words, you waive the Fourth Amendment rights, you waive Fifth Amendment rights.

I think you'd be duty bound to indicate to the court that the court did not mention whether or not the client had waived certain rights so I think you'd be duty bound to do that.

REP. STONE: What if that same example that you gave occurs to someone who represents themselves? Not represented by counsel? Would you, being a public defender in that courtroom feel obliged to bring that to the court's attention?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: That's a difficult question, first of all, because I haven't seen that. And if I were to just imagine that happening, in other words, someone standing in front of the bench and the court is asking that person certain questions that may violate their constitutional rights, would that be the correct scenario?

REP. STONE: Yes, sure.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Do I think it would be my job as a public defender to indicate to the court that the court should ask questions that it has not asked?

REP. STONE: Yes.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I would think not.

REP. STONE: I appreciate you attempting to address the hypothetical and it's not that I think that you had, there's a situation particularly to you where you had the situation and you either didn't act or did act in a certain way.

But you did answer some questions from Representative Dyson which were a little less hypothetical and more based upon your experience relative to the issue of diversity, both within and without, outside the courthouse.

[Inaudible] the answers to the questions which I, may have gotten the answer wrong, so just bear with me. It had to do with the disparity within the courthouse.

And your answer had to with the quality of representation. And if you recall that, you answer had to with [inaudible] if all that a client's getting is, the defense attorney cajoling with or having a pleasant conversation with the prosecutor.

That's one type of representation that if on the other hand you're citing statutes or constitutional provisions and [inaudible] that's another kind of representation.

But how does that in and of itself, how does that [inaudible] representation on the one hand or lack of adequate representation on the other. What does that have to do with the disparity question?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: [inaudible] Representative, with the disposition of the case. For example, if you're not concerned at all, if a lawyer is not concerned at all with the elements of the offense, what constitutional issues may arise. That lawyer may tell that client, look, I think you'll be convicted at trial.

REP. STONE: I understand that, and I understand that certainly different approaches to representing a client may lead to a different result. I'm not arguing that. My questions is, how does it go from assuming that if I agree with you, go from that premise, to the premise that somehow is either promotes or is an indication of racial disparity in the courthouse.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I don't think it is an indication of racial disparity. I think my comment was, that a judge can't look at a situation in front him that's lasting two minutes and come to a determination as to whether there is some sort of racial disparity.

My comment went more to the issue as to whether or not the quality of the representation will lead one to think, since the Public Defenders Office handles 90% of the cases, and question the quality of the Public Defenders Office.

What I'm saying is the quality of the representation, will lead one to think that am I getting a good disposition here or not. And some may question, if I'm taking 10 court dates to work out a misdemeanor and someone else is taking two, people see that.

And they may start to wonder, well why is he taking so long and you're asking me to plead after two court dates? And the perception may be that, [inaudible] for example, maybe there is a disparity here. Based on the quality of the representation.

REP. STONE: How do you relate that to the diversity issue--

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well--

REP. STONE: --to the racial disparity issue?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well--

REP. STONE: How is that related to the racial disparity issue?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: Well, if we're talking about Hartford, it's clear that 90% of the cases that come through are with black and Hispanic defenders.

REP. STONE: Represented by the Public Defenders Office?

KEVIN RANDOLPH: My guess would be 85% to 90%.

REP. STONE: And again, and I just want to make sure that I'm clear on the answer, because I'm still, up to a certain point, you and I may agree. Up to a point of the different types of representation may lead to a different result.

Quite frankly, in answer to Representative Spallone's question, on docket management, you know I think as difficult as it might be for a defendant on the outside, looking at the way the court is being administered and two court appearances result, which is 10 court appearances, different result.

Maybe better, maybe worse, but a different result. As difficult as that might be for the defendant sitting observing what's going on, it may be equally as difficult for a judge or a prospective juror, judge, to determine how quickly cases should be acted upon, the 45 days as you referenced.

When each case, in and of themselves, are handled, really have their own set of facts, every case is different. And where there might be the constitutional issues that you referred to, that may need further research or looked into.

May require the 10 court appearances for the misdemeanor. And that may be more of an indication of effective representation quite frankly than the two court appearances and having coffee with the prosecutor during the lunch break.

And with that being said, I'm still trying to get at how you go from, and you and I may agree, to then, relate that somehow to the racial disparity issue. Which I think is an issue.

I happen to agree with Representative Dyson. I just don't get, I just don't get the bridge. And maybe you can help me out and maybe another example, or somehow, make that bridge for me. Because I don't see it.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I think that disparity--

REP. STONE: Not based upon quality representation, I'm sorry about that.

KEVIN RANDOLPH: I think disparity is one word, but it is multi-faceted. Disparity in the eyes of people who may be in the courthouse on that day, may be that, why doesn't the Public Defender's Office for example, have more minority lawyers?

That's an aspect of disparity which taints the way someone may perceive the system. When I was working in Hartford and the JD and I would say that 80% to 90%, maybe 95% of the clients were black or Hispanic.

I was the only black lawyer in that office for years. That is an aspect of this disparity that colors how someone may see the system.

REP. STONE: I'm still, and I think, and I won't prolong it, I appreciate the Committee's indulgence and I just, you made a comment that I didn't understand. I still don't understand it.

I don't know what the quality of representation comes into play as an indication of racial disparity and perhaps the question was asked, or your response was initially in response to a question from Representative Dyson and perhaps he can better explain that to me in private. But I just--

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chair.

REP. STONE: --I just don't have it. Thank you very much.

REP. DYSON: Mr. Chair.

SEN. MCDONALD: Is there anybody else who would like to ask Mr. Randolph a question who hasn't had an opportunity yet? If not, Representative Dyson.

REP. DYSON: Thank you. I just wanted to offer to Representative Stone an opportunity to build that bridge that he seems not to be able to get, so I'll meet him in the hallway and we can have a discussion about it.

REP. STONE: I can't wait. I can't wait. Let's just hope it's not a bridge too far.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can come sit over here--

SEN. MCDONALD: If there are no further questions for Mr. Randolph, I'd like to thank you for your time and attention this evening.

Next is the Honorable Howard Scheinblum of West Hartford. Good evening your honor. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I do.

SEN. MCDONALD: Please have a seat. Let me welcome you back to the Judiciary Committee. When you were here last, you were very kind in sharing your thoughts about the last eight years of your tenure on the Bench.

And then after that portion of the public hearing, there was at least there was one member of the public that testified at length here against your nomination.

And we thought, and frankly had provided some additional information to the Committee. And as a matter of fairness, it was the opinion of myself and Representative Lawlor that it wasn't fair to you, or to the process or frankly to the Committee to leave that hanging out there if you will, unadorned by your comments.

And so we can either do this, I'd be happy to either sort of recap what was said in your absence at the last public hearing.

Or, if you feel comfortable, or feel like you're knowledgeable enough about what was said in your absence, you're more than welcome to make an additional statement to the Committee.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Senator McDonald, Representative Lawlor, and distinguished Members of this Committee. As you know, I appeared before you on Wednesday, March 6 regarding my reappointment.

It is my understanding that, since that time, questions have arisen, and I hope that I can address some of these issues in my opening statement.

Prior to my appointment in 1990, I practiced law for 24 years. Principally as a criminal defense attorney. For eight of those 24 years, I served as a part-time public defender in what was then Circuit Court 14.

In fact, that was 38 years ago. And for part of that time, my Associate Arnold Theier and I, were the only two public defenders in that court.

When I was assigned to the Hartford GA as a judge, I was faced with overwhelming dockets, on most days 200 to 300 cases. I think that you would agree that criminal matters should be resolved as expeditiously as possible.

It is especially important to the victims of crime. Therefore, I played an active role in the resolution of cases. I now recognize that at times I went beyond the role of the judge.

As a matured as a judge, and listed to comments and criticisms of others, I recognized that my approach was at times inappropriate. Since then, I have taken a less aggressive role in pushing cases to resolution.

One of the areas in which I went beyond the role of the judge was in participating directly with a defendant in plea bargaining negotiations.

One such case was that of Mr. Figurella. In that case, I canvassed the defendant to ensure that he was fully informed of his constitutional rights and of the plea agreement which he willingly accepted.

Specifically, I informed him of various points that he was entitled to be represented by an attorney and repeatedly asked him if he wanted to proceed without one. I am confident that he fully understood the consequences of the plea agreement.

Mr. Figurella who stood before me, charged with the sale of narcotics, was familiar with the criminal justice system in that he had a lengthy criminal history with 14 prior convictions including four burglary convictions, a conviction for carrying a pistol without a permit, as well as convictions for larcenies, drug offenses and violations of probation.

He was in fact being held as a parole violator at the time that he appeared before me. Although my intentions were good, and the federal court found my actions constitutional, I realize that I did in fact overstep my role as a judge.

The 16 years that I have been on the bench have the best of my career. What I am particularly proud of, is the difference that I know I have made in people's lives.

Many defendants over the years have thanked me for helping them to turn their lives around and to become productive citizens. I believe in rehabilitation and strive as a judge to provide offenders with the chance to start anew.

I also have had many people come before me who have used every chance afforded them by the criminal justice system. And yet, they did not learn their lesson.

I believe that I have treated them fairly or hold it as also my responsibility to consider that prior track record in my dealings with them and my responsibility to protect the public.

Let me say again, that I recognize that my early aggressive approach was inappropriate. Well though I believe that no defendant's constitutional rights were violated.

And I believe that each defendant was treated fairly. I recognize that my approach was wrong. I have now restricted my participation to one that is more traditional for a judge. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you, Judge, and I appreciate your opening statement. It does address some of the questions, perhaps not all of the questions that Members of the Committee have.

And I appreciate your acknowledgment that some prior statements or activities by you were over zealous. And I just want to get a sense of this.

If I understand your statement correctly, your actively negotiating plea deals during what time frame?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: This would have been between 1996 and 1999, roughly. A little over three-and-a-half years, I was the presiding judge in Hartford.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay, and when you stopped being the PJ in Hartford, did you stop negotiating plea deals as well?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Pretty much so. When I left Hartford I went to, I think I went to Waterbury was my next stop where I had [inaudible] assignment. I did civil court trials. And I did two days of Criminal One in the so-called drug court and one in the Domestic Violence Court.

SEN. MCDONALD: I guess my question is, what was it about the new assignment going from Hartford to Waterbury that proved to be an epiphany for you in what was appropriate or inappropriate in negotiating pleas?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: The epiphany occurred before I left Hartford, so let me start there. And the second reason I would add is I went to a much less stressful, less volume type of court setting. And now I'm in Enfield, which is a relatively easy-going court.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Kissel, I'm sure, will concur. Let me just say, because this is frankly in light of the questioning of the nominees who preceded you.

This is sort of at the crux of one of the things that we are concerned about. Or let me just speak for myself, that I am concerned about.

And that is how does a judge comport him or herself in a high volume, high stress environment? And from, I've never met you before these hearings, but I do have to say that a number of people have written letters.

We've gotten a number of very complimentary statements about your performance. I've seen some news articles that were very complimentary as well.

There are others who are not quite so complimentary, but I suspect that is part and parcel of being a judge and making difficult choices.

But as somebody that is well regarded by many members of the Bar who practice before you, and I suspect many of them have come up short when they have been before you, but they still respect you.

As somebody who is respected, I am concerned about what happens on the Bench and in the system that would allow for such a breakdown in what I consider to be at least some fundamental court principles for our judicial system.

And I say that with a lot of admiration from what other people have told me about your career. But if you, with a dozen or more years under your belt at the time still fell victim to overstepping the line.

What does that say about perhaps others who aren't sitting before us this evening? And what's going on, because I suspect that you knew that what you were doing in retrospect was probably inappropriate. So what happened?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I can only speak for me. I don't know what other judges might do. I can't answer for how other judges would cope with just the tremendous volume of cases that GA 14 in particular has.

I can only say that I got there at 8:30 a.m. in the morning. I started pre-trials with lawyers at 8:30 a.m. We had to leave court by 5:00 p.m. because the Union wouldn't let the clerk's office, etc. to stay beyond that.

I felt I had to do what I could do as a presiding judge, acknowledging constitutional rights and bending over I think pretty far to make sure that nobody's constitutional rights were violated to achieve a fair disposition of the case.

However, I realize that the Figurella case which typifies one of several that I may have directly plea-bargained with the defendant, definitely gave an appearance of impropriety. And it should not have been done by me.

SEN. MCDONALD: And you know, I read about Judge Cravitz's comments about the Figurella case. It was at least from his perspective. And I will not quibble with his determination that Mr. Figurella's constitutional rights were not violated.

But it's not only the protection of somebody's constitutional rights, but the appearance and the reality of fairness to anybody who appears before a judge. And I'm not a criminal lawyer so if I am off the mark, I'm sure that Representative Lawlor will correct me.

And you should feel free to as well. But at least in one of these transcriptions, and I take you at your word that this could be typical of encounters with defendants. At least one of these transcriptions, and I want to give you an opportunity to respond to it.

You apparently addressed Mr. Figurella, and you said, do you have a lawyer? Mr. Figurella: No Sir. The Court: Do you want to get a lawyer? Mr. Figurella: Yes, if I need it.

And then shortly down you, the Court asks, want to pay a fine? Mr. Figurella, yes. The Court: How much drugs? Prosecutor: Seven bags Your Honor. Seven bags of cocaine. The Court: That's a $700 fine plus costs. Are you interested or not?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: That was my first encounter with Mr. Figurella, as a matter of fact. I think that was in 1997 or '96--

SEN. MCDONALD: '97.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: --and I, I'm not going to try to justify what I did. However in practical terms, if a defendant goes out and hires a lawyer, number one it is probably going to cost him a lot more than $700.

Number two, the state's case was very strong. I first of all, Mr. Figurella or Mr. Smith or anybody, I would never engage in that type of dialogue unless from reading the police report I felt it was what I would call a lay up for the state. Okay.

And Mr. Figurella was a very street-smart person and had been a product of the criminal justice system before that. And he knew what a good deal was and he grabbed it. Would I do it again? In hindsight, the answer is no.

SEN. MCDONALD: Okay, and then, just because this is one of the other issues that was raised at the last public hearing.

I guess another of your opportunities to spend time with Mr. Figurella in 1999, the Court said to Mr. Figurella, do you want to get rid of the case today. I'll offer you three years concurrent with your parole violation.

Defendant: I'll take two years running with my parole right now. The Court: My offer is three Sir. Don't nickel and dime me. Take it or leave it. The Defendant: Fine. My concern obviously is self-evident.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Your concern, and I appreciate what your concern is. However, Senator McDonald, there were times when I didn't speak in legalese to the defendant because it might tend to confuse, etc.

So maybe I, you know in the 26 years I practiced criminal law, I pretty much got to know how to talk to clients who were criminal defendants. And I pretty much knew how to speak to a defendant in front of me when I was a sitting judge.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello again, Judge. Those incidents were a while back, one of them almost 10 years ago, and I think you yourself have just said that style seems to be, seemed like a good idea at the time. I think you have to put it in that category.

But since then, you realized that while well intentioned and while apparently constitutional that from the outside looking in, out of context, that seems unusual for a judge to step out of the role of a judge and into almost, not so much an adversarial role, but a counseling role or whatever.

Maybe it's appropriate in a drug court type setting where the parameters are quite different, but these are normal, regular, run-of-the mill criminal courts.

And so I understand all of that. After you testified the last time, a member of the public testified that he had observed behavior in that general category more recently, apparently, in Enfield. And that was the gist of what gave rise to the request that you come back again.

And he bolstered that with the transcripts that we just read to you in some newspaper articles. Now admittedly, about events that happened seven, eight, nine years ago.

But in essence what he was saying is that he personally had observed things like that happening in the recent past.

And so I was wondering what, if any, events like that would have occurred in the recent past while you have been sitting. How long have you been in Enfield?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Three years, I think.

REP. LAWLOR: So over the last three years is, would it be fair to conclude from your remarks tonight that that type of active participation on the part of you as the Judge, doesn't really take place anymore in Enfield?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I can't recall any instance like that.

REP. LAWLOR: In particular, this individual said that he had personally observed you treating an African-Americans and Latinos with, with the exact words that were used.

But treatment in a similar manner I would say. Not respecting them, dismissing their concerns, minimizing their procedural rights, that type of thing.

And can you say to us today, since you continue to be under oath, that category, that you don't know of any incidents like that that have occurred? And is there anything that you feel you should bring to our attention at this point.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Let me answer the question this way, Representative Lawlor. First of all, any defendant that appears in front of me I see as an individual.

I don't see them as being Afro-American, Caucasian, Hispanic or Asian. I see the person in front of me as an individual. I think I have a reputation for being a no-nonsense judge.

Okay. Now some people may take that to mean that I am mean-spirited toward a particular individual. I think I treat every person that comes in front of me equally, with the respect and the decorum that they deserve. Now Harry Truman said the buck stops here.

When you're sitting as a judge in a criminal court room, and somebody may walk out of your courtroom thinking that he or she didn't get a deal of some sort, then I think that they are very likely to come and complain.

It's very interesting that, whoever was like with Mr. Figurella, no Habeas was filed, no appeals were filed. And in the 16 years that I've been on the bench, I think there has been somewhere around 12 to 15 grievances filed against me all of which have been dismissed.

REP. LAWLOR: Let me, I probably did a disservice and I should clarify that I didn't want to shortchange or not acknowledge the correspondence received by the Committee that any Member of the Committee is free to review.

We have received a number of letters written in support of Judge Scheinblum's re-nomination and there is a fairly healthy packet of materials here if any Member of the Committee is interested in reviewing any of those documents. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Judge Scheinblum, welcome.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. KISSEL: A couple of things. Last night around 11:00 p.m., one of my constituents stopped by my house and they delivered a copy of a statement in support, in favor of your reappointment, and it is signed by 22 attorneys from north central Connecticut.

I'm going to wait, out of fairness to the members of the public that have been so patient this afternoon and now evening, but with permission of the Chairs, it is very brief, after the conclusion of the formal public part, I'd just like to read that into the record. That's A.

Secondly, and maybe it goes back to my days as a special public defender in GA 13 in Enfield. And with that, with the assignment of cases, I think my assignment was 50 cases a year for a few years.

Which I had to give up when I was elected to the Legislature, you can't serve two branches at once. But you know, the transcript that was read by Senator McDonald, I must have a tin ear because it sounded fairly genteel as to what I've seen in my years.

And business has to move. It is rough and tumble. Even in GA 13 when you compare Lafayette Street 14 with Enfield, I would also, I mean Enfield can be quiet at times.

But also, I remember back when I was doing much more criminal law, we had the riots at Carl Robinson, where many of the folks that were brought in were involved in those riots so they were already convicted criminals.

They were felons and they perpetrated crimes within those facilities and indeed in some of those instances there were people murdered within the facility, so north central Connecticut can ebb and flow.

I guess given the information that I've gathered that you are extraordinarily well respected. Indeed, the [inaudible] wouldn't be an appropriate term for the Judiciary Committee, but extremely well respected.

And members who are charged as a matter of ethics and their duty as attorneys to represent the defendants, I think this is just an incidence of isolated situations here.

And I hearken to what Representative Dyson said, because I look at the clock and it's 7:30 p.m., and I'm not going to pick on the unions. I'm very strong in favor of unions.

But if we had to close our building down at 5:00 p.m., we wouldn't be able to be doing this right now. If we had to just work from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., as a Legislature, this whole place would change.

In many ways it might be for the benefit--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that a motion?

SEN. KISSEL: So it strikes me that if you have to get all of your business Monday through Friday, no state holidays, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that's it.

And you're in that courthouse when you have that many complex cases, difficult heart wrenching matters, you have limited options at your disposal.

And your street savvy nature and your experience helps you move things along. Perhaps maybe in not the most diplomatic ways, but it made matters move along.

And I think really in your case [inaudible] Representative Dyson's question which is maybe Judiciary needs more resources.

I don't know if they have the backlog that they have now as they had then, but we might just be asking too much in our urban criminal courts of our judges.

In effect forcing you to move business in a way that in retrospect we might say could have been done better. But at the time we never gave you the resources to do it in a place and in a manner that we then subsequently demand. So that being said, that's my homily.

My single question to you is this, given the fact that there are individuals that have been here all day that are going to testify and the knowledge that I have that in North central Connecticut you're extraordinarily well respected, I see a little bit of a disconnect.

And I'm just wondering what assurances you can make, more so than you already have, and you really have already. But going forward so that everybody on the Judiciary Committee, as well as the folks in the audience can have the assurance that I feel.

I don't have any questions regarding your temperament and your abilities. The only recommendation I made to Judge Lavery and Chief Justice Sullivan and Judge Mack is that I don't think a Judge should be alone in a courthouse.

Not because I don't think they're doing a great job. I think you have to have somebody to bounce things off from at lunchtime.

And I actually think that you would be a great mentor for one of our new judges that are sitting in the audience. I think it would be great for GA 13 or wherever you end up.

I think it would be great for you and it would be great for those new judges. Because your good far outweighs these isolated incidents. But again, just this one question.

What assurance can you give us that going forward we'll only hear laudatory things and we'll be heaping praise on you and we won't be here at 7:30 p.m. going into a few transcripts from six years ago?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Senator Kissel I really can't add anything to what I've already said. Except that I'm now 65 years old and biologically I'm starting to slow down too.

SEN. KISSEL: Okay, thank you so much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: Good afternoon, Judge Scheinblum. A couple of quick ones, first of all, the newspaper article on you in which they had a sign that apparently you have in your office. I don't know if you still have it. But I thought it [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 4B to Tape 5A.]

--that you had that sort of exemplifies the way you approach this. Could you read that to us?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I would. What Representative Farr is referring to is I have a framed quotation by Lord G. Chesterton who died in 1936. He was a well-known British writer and lecturer.

The horrible about thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives and policemen, is not that they are wicked, not that they are stupid, it is simply that they have gotten used to it.

They do not see the prisoner in the dark. All they see is the usual men in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment, they see only their workshop.

And to expand on that, I have always asked certain questions of the defendant to determine what that person is. Certain few key questions. And every time I have meted out a disposition in a case, it was always with that individual in mind.

It wasn't a stock disposition. And I am sure that some of you know that I have oftentimes given dispositions that are rather different than the usual.

REP. FARR: And I'd just add to that, that what you just said is what all the defense [inaudible] says to me that you look at the individual. That your dispositions are reasonable.

I haven't talked to any defense counsel that says they are dissatisfied with your dispositions. And Members of the Committee ought to know that I've been GA 14 earlier in my career.

And it is like JF day every day there. We have too much to do and we got to get it done by 5:00 p.m. and you got to do deals because you can't move the business without it.

And I read the transcript of the Figurella case. And I've been in federal court as well. And when somebody pleads guilty in federal court, they have what's called a canvas.

It takes an hour. To make sure the guy, everything about what the individual did, make sure that he's got proper counsel. He's satisfied with counsel, he thinks it's a great deal. And he goes on for an hour.

That would be great if we have the luxury of doing that in the GA. We don't have the luxury of doing that. And I think your point is actually right on when you pointed out that the criticism of these, of your deals that you've done, have not been from the defendants.

In the Figurella case, the issue was not Figurella seeking to reopen that case, so he could go back to court.

It was that he had a good defense counsel in federal court and was trying to reduce the number of cases that the number of sentences that were counted against him for sentencing purposes in a federal court.

Because the feds have a sentencing guideline. They count how many convictions. The less convictions you have the less the sentence you're going to get.

And what they were doing is not saying this wasn't a valid conviction, they were saying don't count this one because I didn't have counsel and wasn't freely given. But they never, he never went back to Superior Court and said reopen it.

Because he knew it was a good deal and he wasn't questioning it. And as you point out, the very few cases [inaudible] have done that.

And then just give one other case that I think that you probably ought to get an award for, was the case that was cited in the paper, where, according to this newspaper report.

A middle-aged African woman was about to be sentenced for assaulting a man in his 20s. You asked her why she hit the man. She said he had taken her 15-year-old daughter out on a date.

I'd have hit him too, said Scheinblum, who prevailed on the prosecutor not to go forward with the case. God bless you Judge Scheinblum for that one.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCDONALD: Other questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Green had his hand up first.

REP. GREEN: Good afternoon--

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Good afternoon.

REP. GREEN: Good evening. I got to tell you that I am very concerned and was disturbed by some of the things that I read. And I've also got to tell you that I have to express some concern because I have attended court proceedings similar to Senator Handley.

I've been in court and not with charges but just to observe and to support other people. And it's always struck me somewhat uncomfortably the kind of treatment that I see people have, and that I received, from marshals, court personnel, and sometimes judges.

I happened to be in your courtroom one day and I got to tell you, I was a little concerned with the tone that I received.

So when I read about other cases that involve defendants, and what I consider that, I might not consider the appropriate tone from a judge, I want to ask you as we have talked about in this Committee quite a while now, at least recently, is demeanor. How important do you think demeanor is for a judge?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Demeanor is extremely important, Representative Green. I think in the past that may have been perceived by some to be mean spirited if you will by the Judge. It was rather my tendency to be somewhat emotive.

REP. GREEN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear--

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: --to be somewhat emotive. If something makes me angry I, my want was not to hide my anger. Okay. So I think that gave a perception to the public and I realize that in retrospect that I should sit there probably much more stoically.

REP. GREEN: I've heard a lot about the Figurella case. You expressed in your opening statement that you thought he understood the proceeding. Part of what I heard based on I think on how you believe he understood it, was because he had prior history. He'd had a number of convictions.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Fourteen as a matter of fact.

REP. GREEN: It appeared to me from some of the information and you can correct me, if I'm not correct, is that did it appear on that day, if you can recall, whether or not this Mr. Figurella was under the influence of anything?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Absolutely not. If he had appeared to be under the influence I would not have proceeded.

REP. GREEN: Let me continue on with the Mr. Figurella case. If he had appeared that, do you feel that you had the ability to access whether or not he was under the influence? And tell me if you felt you had that ability, tell me what experience do you have or what information were you working with to make that conclusion.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: My years as a judge and before that my experience as principally a criminal lawyer. I can tell when a person is high or not high. And I think, I'm not a doctor. But I know by talking to somebody by looking at them, I know when they are high or not high.

REP. GREEN: In a plea bargaining system, which I do have some concerns about. And again, in this particular case, it was a plea bargain deal.

And I think I heard you say that this probably the only situation where you negotiated directly with the defendant on a plea bargain. Was I correct in hearing that?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: You were correct.

REP. GREEN: Okay. I do have some concerns about the plea bargaining situation. I understand some of the things that I think. We as a Committee and we as a state have to look into how our court proceeds.

However in the plea bargaining situation, what do you think the value or where do you place plea-bargaining in our system as it appears that the court utilizes this method.

What's your thoughts on whether or not the purpose of this process and whether or not defendants, you feel defendants rights are totally being, their rights are being protected based on the system. Or do you feel that the system somehow reduces a defendant's rights to certain proceedings?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Representative Green, first and foremost without plea bargaining, the criminal justice system, not only in this state, but probably in most states would totally collapse.

Secondly, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of plea-bargaining by acknowledging the fact that they will allow a defendant to plead guilty the so-called Al Four Doctrine.

Which means basically, Judge, I'm pleading guilty not because I admit I did anything wrong, but rather because I know if I have a trial, I'm going to lose.

And if I lose the trial, I will probably receive a more severe sentence. So even the United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of plea-bargaining. And our criminal justice system just couldn't make it without it.

REP. GREEN: In your experience as a judge, have you ever had the opportunity to review your cases and determine whether or not there was a certain percentage of your cases that the defendant was a first-time defendant in the court system versus, again this [inaudible] Mr. Figurella who had an extensive history.

Do you keep that kind of information? Are you concerned about that? Let me ask you that first.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: No, I don't keep any statistics. But I will say this without any reservations, Representative Green. If Mr. Figurella had been in front of me for the very first time and had no prior track record, I would not have engaged in any offer or anything with him.

He was experienced. He was being held as a parole violator. He had I think another year or more than a year to go on that unexpired portion of the term that he was on parole for.

But if it was some novice, some first-time offender that came in front of me, this Judge would never, never would have engaged in any type of plea-bargaining with him.

REP. GREEN: On the issue of bond, tell me what the purpose of bond is?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Purpose of bond is two-fold. Number one to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court. Number two, to protect the public.

REP. GREEN: When a judge is trying to determine the bond, the setting of the bond. How does a judge, where does the judge get that information to determine that? What criteria do they use to make a determination of bond?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: First of all, as you know, we have bail commissioners in our courts. They familiarize the judge with the criminal record, if any, of the defendant, ties to the community, work history and they make a recommendation to the court of what they think the bond should be.

Sometimes I will adopt that recommendation. Sometimes I will undercut the recommendation of the Bail Commissioner and sometimes I will set a higher bond that recommended by the Bail Commissioner.

REP. GREEN: On the non-surety bond, and I happened to be at a case that day. It was a question of a non-surety bond and a promise to appear. Do you see a difference in those and what is the difference?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I don't see any difference in reality. They're both releases without the necessity to post any money or pay a professional bonds person.

REP. GREEN: So why do we have two different types then?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: That's a good question. And I can't give you the answer. I don't know it.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Any questions? Representative Dillon and then Senator Gomes.

REP. DILLON: Good evening.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Good evening.

REP. DILLON: I just, I didn't really question you came before us before and you've drawn a lot more attention than I expected. But I guess I wanted to ask you because it is an area of particular interest about your time on the Drug Court.

I actually, I went to Boston with Judge Dannehy, a couple of the other judges when we were organizing some of the drug courts and we went to a training session up there that was two or three days.

And this is going back a few years. And I was disappointed when they made some changes during the budget [inaudible]. I would like to know, because that isn't usually considered a high status assignment, whether you asked for it, any analysis you have of your time there.

And I had understood, but I'm not really clear on it, that you may have been involved in some kind of diversion program as well, or was that simply part of the drug court?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: First of all, I didn't ask to be assigned to the drug court. Nor did I ask to be assigned to the domestic violence court. The purpose of those courts are very well intentioned.

The final result in a lot of cases turned out to be good results. Sometimes it didn't. And the purpose for instance was that you'd have a user get that person clean and hopefully they wouldn't reuse again. Sometimes it works and more often than not it doesn't.

REP. DILLON: But some of the criticisms and I know that people have said this to me over the years. I was very actively involved with domestic violence issues before I was a Legislator, as an advocate, not as a victim.

That many people have questioned to me whether or not it's useful to have what they call boutique courts since they're sorted out.

And also many people have told me that they believe that the drug courts don't necessarily involve judging per se, but you're sort of a social worker and you're managing individual cases.

What year were you on the drug court? And did you have a sense that it was a different type of work?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I believe it was the year 2000 I was on the drug court and the domestic violence court. And what was the second part of your question, I'm sorry.

REP. DILLON: Did you have a sense that it was different from ordinary judging?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Yes, every day.

REP. DILLON: Is there a value attached to having a separate court?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I think it made me feel more like a social worker than like a judge. It has a value. But as I say, it didn't always work. And I really didn't sit long enough. I was one year on each of those two courts and I don't think that that is a long enough time to give you a fair assessment.

REP. DILLON: Well I guess I'm asking also, I've heard about comments that you've made to people that would be something like, I don't want to see you back here again, or that sort of thing.

Where I wondered, and I realized that maybe Judge Judy might say that, but theoretically, we don't. You know, you would question why someone has come before you again, and you'd say that I don't want to see you back if I'm going to do that.

Whether that had something to do with your experience in drug court where you would see yourself, or what exactly would prompt you to talk to a defendant that way?

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: More paternalistically I think, more as person to person than perhaps as a Judge.

REP. DILLON: Thank you.

SEN. MCDONALD: Senator Gomes.

SEN. GOMES: I've members of the Judiciary Committee laud you for some of the things that you've done in the past. And most of them are lawyers.

Myself as a layperson, I haven't had the experience to be in your court or know about the court. But some of the things that I've seen that have been passed to us, sort of disturbed me if they are true.

I've been at a point when I've seen a judge make light of something and as a matter of fact I've seen a judge sentence somebody one day and then she sat down and said as a smart quip she said, I can do that standing on my head.

And he slammed the gavel down and he said I'll give you another 30 days to get on your feet. This might have amused some people but a judge that sits in a court is all, he's the man, everybody has to rely on him.

And when a defendant comes before a judge, most of the time, especially if they're young people, they come before you, they're terrified, they're scared.

And some of the things that go on or some of the remarks that are made to him could put them in a more disparaging situation where they'll be more scared.

I see one here, you said that when you speak to people, you speak to them as individuals. And one of these things that somebody gave me, it says the man is charged with driving without a license.

You shouldn't own a car with no license, or are you just stupid, yelled Scheinblum. And to make double sure that the Latino before him understands, he adds, el stupido.

So this sort of thing, not only in my estimation, would intimate this person, it's intimidating them with a little bit of discrimination involved.

Now am I supposed to sit here and listen to attorneys who deal with you everyday or dealing with these situations every day? Or am I supposed to, as a layperson, supposed to listen to these people who would issue these complaints and say something is wrong with the system.

That somebody who is in complete charge could talk to somebody in that manner. I'm not for letting people who break the law go out of court or anything.

But I'm saying when you hit the court and you come in there and you're dead scared of everybody in there.

Whether you did something wrong or whether you didn't do something wrong, then I think that people need to be treated with the respect that's due them as a person.

Not as a defendant, not as somebody that broke the law, but as the person themselves. And in the term in which you would allow, you would expect somebody to treat you with respect.

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: I totally agree.

SEN. GOMES: That's just my take on the situation. I see another one here where a 17-year-old with no criminal record and his mother by his side faces Scheinblum.

Madam, your son is a wise guy he yells. The mother informs the Judge that her son has joined the National Guard and just returned from Boot Camp. Scheinblum responded, take this man to Vietnam, please. You know, those are--

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Where are you quoting from, Senator?

SEN. GOMES: I don't know where they came from [inaudible]--

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: --Hartford Advocate? First of all, a 17-year-old with no prior record would be treated as a youthful offender. It wouldn't be an open courtroom. So I don't know where this reporter came up with this.

SEN. GOMES: I'm just reading. I'm--

JUDGE HOWARD SCHEINBLUM: Well, I know you're reading something but--

SEN. GOMES: I'm just reading.