A Fax sent to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
The Skippy on Lyme Disease Big Pharma, Dot Gov, Big Corporation Fraud, and Bogus Testing for Lyme Click here for post on Kathleen Dickson's assertions of the biggest medical corporate/insurance fraud ever.
Connecticut's Culture of Corruption, Steven G. Erickson speaks in front of the Connecticut Judicial Reform Commission Hartford Capitol Connecticut. YouTube videos and much more, click here
I sent registered letters to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Governor. The post and text, found here
posted by The_SRV at 1:19 PM
1 Comments:
February 03, 2004
Police decide who they arrest, prosecutors decide if they feel like prosecuting, Judges can show bias and juries are instructed to be a rubber stamp in videos for the jury.
No it�s not fair. At least that is the case from my experiences in Connecticut.
If you are accused of anything in Connecticut, are arrested, and the prosecutor refuses to offer you any deal or you qualify for first time offender status and are denied, something you should be entitled to by law, then you might just be going through the automatic process of being sent to a Connecticut Prison, as the whole legal system in Connecticut might not be Constitutional.
If you live in another State, hopefully you have an �American� system with checks and balances. Someone arrested should at least, have a chance of being found innocent. As many that are wrongly arrested and harassed by the legal system because of their race, where they live, and/or their occupation, makes injustice, possibly more prevalent than actual just, justice.
-Steven G. Erickson
Excerpts: Goodrow argued that the videos were prejudicial and wrongly instructed potential jurors about their role and the law.
The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining "guilt or innocence" of a defendant.
"They're never instructed to find if a person is innocent," Goodrow said. "You could be in a situation where a jury feels the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels [the defendant] is not innocent. But because they're following the law they have to find him not guilty."
But Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth called Dyer's decision "extremely important because it's difficult enough to get jurors to engage in the presumption of innocence when someone is arrested and charged with a crime."
(click link below for more)
...
Judge Hits `Edit' On Juror Videos
January 31, 2004
By DIANE STRUZZI, Hartford Courant Staff Writer (ctnow.com)
Judicial officials have recalled and re-edited about 65 videotapes used statewide to introduce potential jurors to the court system after a Superior Court judge ruled they contained inaccurate statements about the law.
The videos, called "Pursuit of Justice" and "The Voir Dire," have been seen by individuals called in for jury duty. "Pursuit of Justice" presents an overview of the judicial branch, including an explanation of the role of juries. "The Voir Dire" talks about the jury selection process, in particular the procedure in which lawyers question potential jurors.
Superior Court Judge Richard Dyer, sitting in Rockville, made his ruling after Public Defender Karen Goodrow requested that the tapes not be shown to potential jurors in a drunken-driving case. Goodrow argued that the videos were prejudicial and wrongly instructed potential jurors about their role and the law.
The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining "guilt or innocence" of a defendant.
"They're never instructed to find if a person is innocent," Goodrow said. "You could be in a situation where a jury feels the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels [the defendant] is not innocent. But because they're following the law they have to find him not guilty."
Dyer found that several comments in the videos could undermine the presumption of a defendant's innocence and ordered that they not be shown to prospective jurors in the drunken-driving case.
"Although the court believes that proper final instructions could completely cure any potential harm caused by the few erroneous introductory instructions referenced above, the court finds that it is improper to knowingly present any inaccurate or possibly prejudicial information to potential jurors," Dyer wrote in his Jan. 7 decision.
He did not uphold other objections raised by Goodrow, including her objection to the inclusion of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution in one video.
Tolland County State's Attorney Matthew Gedansky said his office argued against Goodrow's motion, but respects the judge's ruling. Judge Jonathan Kaplan, administrative judge for the Tolland Judicial District, immediately suspended the use of the videos and alerted the deputy chief court administrator and chief administrative judge for criminal courts.
"Once I'm on notice that a judge of the Superior Court feels that something we do has some constitutional problems in it, my feeling is it was irresponsible to just ignore that and show the movies in other cases," Kaplan said.
Dyer's ruling had an immediate ripple effect throughout the state judicial system. Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino called on several judges to review the tapes and determine if changes should be made, according to Melissa Farley, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch. The judges decided the tapes should be re-edited, and on Jan. 12 Pellegrino sent e-mails to all administrative judges asking them not to show the tapes. E-mails also were sent to other court officials and to law libraries, requesting they return the tapes.
"We thought we should give the benefit of the doubt to taking out those statements [Dyer] thought were objectionable," Pellegrino said. "Of course, we could have waited for an appeal, but if the Appellate Court found he was right then there might be some cases that might be overturned."
Farley said she believes this is the first time a Superior Court judge has issued a decision regarding the videos. An earlier version of "Pursuit of Justice" was edited after several criminal lawyers voiced concerns about the tape, Farley said. The changes will be the first made to the "The Voir Dire," which was produced after the legislature passed a law regarding jury selection in 1996. The late Judge John Maloney largely guided the making of both videos and received suggestions from various lawyer organizations, Farley said.
The changes to the tapes included omitting an announcer's statement about juries and judges determining "an individual's guilt or innocence" and a judge's statement about deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, according to information provided by the judicial branch.
Changes have been completed on "Pursuit of Justice," which is being redistributed to courts. Changes to "The Voir Dire" are expected to be done soon and redistribution completed within days, Farley said. Meanwhile, judges will give oral instructions to potential jurors.
Deputy Chief State's Attorney Paul Murray said that if jurors were prejudiced by the remarks on the videos it was only in a minor way and, as Dyer pointed out, the errors could be corrected by other means.
Several defense lawyers appeared split on the impact of the videos on potential jurors.
Michael Georgetti, chairman of the Hartford County Bar Association's criminal justice committee, said he typically asks potential jurors what they thought about the tapes, but has never challenged the videos.
"First impressions are lasting impressions, and what they see in the first hour of jury duty is probably what they remember the most," he said. "If I have to pick a jury between now and the time the tapes come out, I'll make a motion for a continuance so the jury indoctrination can be reviewed by me."
Richard R. Brown said he doesn't believe the videos affect the jurors.
"My primary reason for that feeling is Connecticut has, beyond question, the best voir dire system for the selection of jurors," he said. "I feel any deficiencies in the videos were cured by an opportunity to thoroughly question prospective jurors before being seated at trial. ... I think in the real world it's much ado about nothing."
But Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth called Dyer's decision "extremely important because it's difficult enough to get jurors to engage in the presumption of innocence when someone is arrested and charged with a crime."
"Sometimes jurors are left with the impression that their oath and obligation is to convict the guilty. Their obligation goes beyond that," he said. "What remains to be seen is whether or not the revised version of the tapes remedies the problems."
Goodrow said it would be a good time to overhaul the videos using suggestions from defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other court personnel. Some defense lawyers agree. Pellegrino said he isn't opposed to the suggestion and would be happy to do whatever it takes to create better videos.
Defense lawyer M.H. Reese Norris, who in the past has challenged one of the videos, said he supports the idea.
"If you have everyone's input," he said, "you won't have this problem in the future."
Jury Duty Tapes Edited To Fix Errors
9:46 AM EST,January 30, 2004
By DIANE STRUZZI, The Hartford Courant
Judicial officials have recalled and re-edited about 65 videotapes used statewide to introduce potential jurors to the court system after a Superior Court judge ruled they contained inaccurate statements about the law.
The videos, called "Pursuit of Justice" and "The Voir Dire," have been seen by individuals called in for jury duty. "Pursuit of Justice" presents an overview of the judicial branch, including an explanation of the role of juries. "The Voir Dire" talks about the jury selection process, in particular the procedure in which lawyers question potential jurors.
Superior Court Judge Richard Dyer, sitting in Rockville, made his ruling after Public Defender Karen Goodrow requested that the tapes not be shown to potential jurors in a drunken-driving case. Goodrow argued that the videos were prejudicial and wrongly instructed potential jurors about their role and the law.
The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining "guilt or innocence" of a defendant.
"They're never instructed to find if a person is innocent," Goodrow said. "You could be in a situation where a jury feels the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels [the defendant] is not innocent. But because they're following the law they have to find him not guilty."
Dyer found that several comments in the videos could undermine the presumption of a defendant's innocence and ordered that they not be shown to prospective jurors in the drunken-driving case.
"Although the court believes that proper final instructions could completely cure any potential harm caused by the few erroneous introductory instructions referenced above, the court finds that it is improper to knowingly present any inaccurate or possibly prejudicial information to potential jurors," Dyer wrote in his Jan. 7 decision.
He did not uphold other objections raised by Goodrow, including her objection to the inclusion of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution in one video.
Tolland County State's Attorney Matthew Gedansky said his office argued against Goodrow's motion, but respects the judge's ruling. Judge Jonathan Kaplan, administrative judge for the Tolland Judicial District, immediately suspended the use of the videos and alerted the deputy chief court administrator and chief administrative judge for criminal courts.
"Once I'm on notice that a judge of the Superior Court feels that something we do has some constitutional problems in it, my feeling is it was irresponsible to just ignore that and show the movies in other cases," Kaplan said.
Dyer's ruling had an immediate ripple effect throughout the state judicial system. Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino called on several judges to review the tapes and determine if changes should be made, according to Melissa Farley, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch. The judges decided the tapes should be re-edited, and on Jan. 12 Pellegrino sent e-mails to all administrative judges asking them not to show the tapes. E-mails also were sent to other court officials and to law libraries, requesting they return the tapes.
"We thought we should give the benefit of the doubt to taking out those statements [Dyer] thought were objectionable," Pellegrino said. "Of course, we could have waited for an appeal, but if the Appellate Court found he was right then there might be some cases that might be overturned ..."
Farley said she believes this is the first time a Superior Court judge has issued a decision regarding the videos. An earlier version of "Pursuit of Justice" was edited after several criminal lawyers voiced concerns about the tape, Farley said. The changes will be the first made to the "The Voir Dire,", which was produced after the legislature passed a law regarding jury selection in 1996. The late Judge John Maloney largely guided the making of both videos and received suggestions from various lawyer organizations, Farley said.
The changes to the tapes included omitting an announcer's statement about juries and judges determining "an individual's guilt or innocence" and a judge's statement about deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, according to information provided by the judicial branch.
Changes have been completed on "Pursuit of Justice," which is being redistributed to courts. Changes to "The Voir Dire" are expected to be done soon and redistribution completed within the next 10 days, Farley said. Meanwhile , judges will give oral instructions to potential jurors.
Deputy Chief State's Attorney Paul Murray said that if jurors were prejudiced by the remarks on the videos it was only in a minor way and, as Dyer pointed out, the errors could be corrected by other means.
Several defense lawyers appeared split on the impact of the videos on potential jurors.
Michael Georgetti, chairman of the Hartford County Bar Association's criminal justice committee, said he typically asks potential jurors what they thought about the tapes, but has never challenged the videos.
"First impressions are lasting impressions, and what they see in the first hour of jury duty is probably what they remember the most," he said. "If I have to pick a jury between now and the time the tapes come out, I'll make a motion for a continuance so the jury indoctrination can be reviewed by me."
Richard R. Brown said he doesn't believe the videos affect the jurors.
"My primary reason for that feeling is Connecticut has, beyond question, the best voir dire system for the selection of jurors," he said. "I feel any deficiencies in the videos were cured by an opportunity to thoroughly question prospective jurors before being seated at trial. ... I think in the real world it's much ado about nothing."
But Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth called Dyer's decision "extremely important because it's difficult enough to get jurors to engage in the presumption of innocence when someone is arrested and charged with a crime."
"Sometimes jurors are left with the impression that their oath and obligation is to convict the guilty. Their obligation goes beyond that," he said. "What remains to be seen is whether or not the revised version of the tapes remedies the problems."
Goodrow said it would be a good time to overhaul the videos using suggestions from defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other court personnel. Some defense lawyers agree. Pellegrino said he isn't opposed to the suggestion and would be happy to do whatever it takes to create better videos.
Defense lawyer M.H. Reese Norris, who in the past has challenged one of the videos, said he supports the idea.
Judicial officials edit 65 jury duty tapes to remove errors
January 30, 2004
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Nearly 65 videotapes shown statewide to people in jury duty have been recalled and edited after a Superior Court judge said some of their statements about the law were wrong.
Vernon Superior Court Judge Richard Dyer issued his ruling earlier this month after a public defender requested that potential jurors in a drunken-driving case not be shown the tapes.
Thousands of people have seen the videos "Pursuit of Justice" and "The Voir Dire" when reporting for jury duty in state courts.
"Pursuit of Justice" presents an overview of the Judicial Branch, including an explanation of the role of juries. "The Voir Dire" talks about the jury selection process, in particular the procedure in which lawyers question potential jurors.
Public Defender Karen Goodrow requested that the tapes not be shown to potential jurors in a drunken-driving case, arguing that the videos were prejudicial and provided wrong information about jurors' role and the law, The Hartford Courant reported.
The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining "guilt or innocence" of a defendant.
"They're never instructed to find if a person is innocent," Goodrow said. "You could be in a situation where a jury feels the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels the defendant is not innocent. But because they're following the law they have to find him not guilty."
Dyer found in his Jan. 7 decision that several comments in the videos could undermine the presumption of a defendant's innocence and ordered that they not be shown to prospective jurors in the drunken-driving case.
The judge did not uphold other objections raised by Goodrow, including her objection to the inclusion of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution in one video.
Tolland County State's Attorney Matthew Gedansky said his office argued against Goodrow's motion, but respects the judge's ruling.
Judge Jonathan Kaplan, administrative judge for the Tolland Judicial District, immediately suspended the use of the videos and alerted the deputy chief court administrator and chief administrative judge for criminal courts.
Dyer's decision was felt throughout the state judicial system.
Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino called on several judges to review the tapes and determine if changes should be made, according to Melissa Farley, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch.
The judges decided the tapes should be re-edited, and on Jan. 12 Pellegrino sent e-mails to all administrative judges asking them not to show the tapes. E-mails also were sent to other court officials and to law libraries, requesting they return the tapes.
The changes to the tapes included omitting an announcer's statement about juries and judges determining "an individual's guilt or innocence" and a judge's statement about deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, according to information provided by the judicial branch.
Changes have been completed on "Pursuit of Justice," which is being redistributed to courts. Changes to "The Voir Dire" are expected to be done soon and redistribution completed within the next 10 days, Farley said. Meanwhile, judges will give oral instructions to potential jurors.
Deputy Chief State's Attorney Paul Murray said that if jurors were prejudiced by the remarks on the videos it was only in a minor way and, as Dyer pointed out, the errors could be corrected by other means.
An earlier version of "Pursuit of Justice" was edited after several criminal lawyers voiced concerns about the tape, Farley said. The changes will be the first made to the "The Voir Dire," which was produced after the legislature passed a law regarding jury selection in 1996.
Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth called Dyer's decision "extremely important because it's difficult enough to get jurors to engage in the presumption of innocence when someone is arrested and charged with a crime."
(news articles from the Hartford Courant, ctnow.com)
____________________________
(past posts on FreeSpeech.com):
Many police officers allow crimes and criminals to just commit more and more crimes, as they probably do not feel they are obligated to serve any citizens they don�t feel like serving, which is too often the case. They are, however, usually required to serve the town, city, and or State for revenue collection needs. If you live downtown and are critical of police and the court system, you can find yourself being threatened and harassed by police or even being sent to prison to shut you up. (story)
Lawyers can charge what they want, not give you your legal file, not defend you, and can feel they are entitled to fees approaching or exceeding an average person�s annual salary for doing little or nothing, not having to justify hours spent or charges on their bill. Most lawyers will not act against other lawyers as (my personal perception) police will not turn in another police officer for almost any kind of offense. (story)
Who really runs a State, the head of the police or the governor? (story)
Posted by Vikingas at February 3, 2004 08:32 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Assuming this video was shown to my jury, there was little doubt as to what the outcome would be.
It was bad enough my lawyer, didn't call witnesses, refused to defend me, refused to dispute false testimony, especially the State Connecticut State Trooper perjury, but to let a worker for the police on the jury to become jury foreman, not using our stike right, when I had been having a pissing contest with the local and State Police and the local court, judges, and prosecutors BEFORE the event in newspapers angering any of them that read newspapers, is a sign my lawyer that charged more than a $17,000 legal fee was doing nothing for me.
But, it seems he was working for the judge I tried to have fired BEFORE the incident, the prosecutor I tried to have fired BEFORE the incident, and with the Connecticut State Police that most knew my name from LT Davoren (head of Troop C, Tolland at the time) on down as I had pissed him off arguing with him that police don't serve landlords and downtown business owners only fining honest citizens, not protecting and serving.
Davoren's statement to me on why Police Officers would not take my statement after the attempted 'mugging' when I was beaten on my property, and that when officers after finally doing an investigation a month later, that I was the victim and that the officers should have arrested my attacker, with police refusing even then to arrest my attacker was to say, "My only job is to protect the integrity of the system."
Which means to me, that officers will lie and worse to protect each other and what they do, do, act as Armed Revenue Collectors, not law enforcement.
So much for Free Speech in Connecticut.
Posted by: Steven G. Erickson at February 3, 2004 01:09 PM
P.S. Judge Kaplan is the one who sentenced me to a year in prison, 3 years probation for not being able to get away from an attempted mugger who beat me on my own property after publicly terrorizing me for weeks.
I wrote Kaplan a nasty letter, accusing of bias, in a Small Claims case, saying he was an unfair judge, with the docket #, sent to the Rockville Connecticut Court addressed to the judge BEFORE the incident.
I then spent 2 years trying to get Judge Jonathan Kaplan removed through local politicians and the 2 political action groups I sat on as a member.
Police, prosecutors, judges, and even a defense lawyer CAN conspire to get rid of a 'Big Mouth' sending him to prison on ridiculous charges and causing ejection out of the State of Connecticut to get even more prison time for testing Free Speech.
Posted by: Steven G. Erickson at February 3, 2004 01:14 PM
Letter to the editor email to the Hartford Courant:
I am responding to your �Judge Hits `Edit' On Juror Videos�, January 31, 2004, by DIANE STRUZZI. If juries are viewing video tapes that are skewed in favor of the prosecution, how fair is that? All cases should be reviewed for errors as the number must be astronomical.
It is just one more ingredient in a completely unjust Justice System in Connecticut. Go into any court house and you see cattle like lines feeding in. There are windows that say �Pay Here,� so it is about the collection of cash more so than the dispensation of justice.
Try complaining about a police officer. Another police officer of higher rank from the same department will take your complaint in the middle of the station so all officers can stare you down, that is if they even bother taking your complaint, never mind, ACTUALLY investigating it.
Prosecutors and Judges are just about impossible to remove or lodge complaints against. Just try a futile attempt at complaining and they may get you back in the worst possible way.
So if someone is arrested and if the prosecutor refused to offer the suspect a deal, not yet proven guilty, the outcome might be assured, the victim, the man or woman wrongly arrested, can almost count on the harshest possible treatment, a ridiculously high fine, the strictest most unreasonable conditions, and even going to prison over the slightest charges even if a first time offender, and not guilty of the offense.
It doesn�t matter to most people how inefficient, biased, Unconstitutional, petty, and arbitrary our justice system is, until you are caught up in it. But then, it is too late for you, and virtually nobody will raise a finger or voice in your defense as all that you ever worked for goes down the tubes along with losing contact with your family, friends, and work associates where you have lost your job.
-Steven G. Erickson
Stafford Springs, CT
Posted by: Steven G. Erickson at February 5, 2004 10:08 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home