Shenigans by the Judge at the dog stabbing trial (a little long but a MUST read!)
This judge needs to go!!!
Hamden Dog Stabbing Courtroom Shennigans: Judge Scarpellino Must Go!
Alexander P. Bernard, 25, is charged with stabbing his own dog 29 times on May 25th, 2011 in a neighbor’s driveway. The victim is Princess the Staffordshire Terrier mix, a beautiful animal with a wonderful gentle temperament, nearly 100% better medically from her injuries suffered in the incident. She is receiving somewhat sacrificial care by veterinarian Dr. James Wells and his staff at North Haven Animal Hospital, a wonderful facility. This Examiner, along with two animal rights advocates visited Princess after Bernard’s Meriden courthouse appearance on July 22nd, and some photos are included in a slideshow accompanying this article. Princess was responsive to us three strangers, honored me with allowing me to touch and pet her very quickly, seemed a bit nervous with all the attention, but was clearly happy with the affections of the familiar staff. All three visitors, staff and Princess had a great time. Dr. Wells was in surgery, but was eager to see Princess’ visitors, and requested that we remain until he could come out and speak with us personally and we were delighted to do so. Princess suffered the 29 wounds, loss of blood and a pneumothorax, which is a lung collapse involving relatively little liquid filling the lung cavity where the lung is supposed to be. I, myself suffered a spontaneous pneumothorax fifteen years ago which placed me in the ICU at Yale New Haven Hospital for two days, due not to an injury, but due to a congenital illness, and I was hospitalized for a total of a week. I have never before or since suffered such agonizing pain as I did from that partial lung collapse.
At his July 12th Meriden Superior court appearance (his case is being heard by Judge Phillip Scarpellino, and he’s represented by Public Defender Thomas Conroy, no specific prosecutor is assigned), Mr. Conroy spoke to the judge indicating that Mr. Bernard wished to make a statement. The Judge allowed this, and Bernard said he was dissatisfied with Conroy, wanted to locate another attorney and asked for a continuance to the end of July in order to do so. He also said that the Whalley Avenue Corrections Center in New Haven, where he is being held on $10,000 bond, has not been cooperative in allowing him phone calls.
Judge Scarpellino, from the bench on July 12th, revealed to the courtroom, including several animal rights activists and at least one reporter, that a plea deal had been offered to Mr. Bernard, who has only been charged with a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty for this particularly horrendous crime, of a one year jail sentence, suspended after 60 days served. The judge indicated that by the end of July he would have only another 30 days and then he’d be out of jail if he accepted this plea bargain. Mr. Bernard again confirmed his refusal of this offer, and the judge continued the case until July 22nd at Mr. Bernard’s request, but since Scarpellino was on vacation the last week of July, the 22nd was the date set. The judge also indicated that he’d instruct the corrections center to cooperate with phone calls. Mr. Conroy, Bernard’s defender, spoke little during this proceeding at all; the defendant did all the talking in his own defense at this appearance.
At the July 22nd appearance Mr. Bernard only uttered whispered single word answers when directly questioned by Judge Scarpellino, and Public Defender Conroy spoke for the defendant and at this appearance no mention was made of the reason stated for the continuance and for the court date, which was Mr. Bernard’s need for time to seek another attorney than Mr. Conroy. Instead Judge Scarpellino spoke about a letter he had received from a member of the Connecticut General Assembly, whom he did not identify (which we’ve confirmed is Diana Urban from North Stonington) which was signed, he said, by 22 other members of the legislature. He spoke for at least 5 minutes about the letter. He was indignant that the legislators included their legislative districts in the letter (mentioned this 3 times at least). He offered his opinions about legislative interference in judicial matters. He called the letter an ‘intimidation attempt.’ He said bitterly that recent legislation passed by the General Assembly had the effect of turning the courts into a ‘department’ rather than a ‘branch’ of state government. He indicated his anger at such legislative ‘interference,’ spoke extensively about Assembly politics and legislation, and offered an impromptu seeming op-ed piece from the bench. He quoted the letter as having said that “the sheer violence of his attack is enormously worrisome and the fact that the court doesn’t take this seriously” is a concern to the legislators. Scarpellino angrily expressed his feeling that this passage indicated that the letter writer assumed Mr. Bernard’s guilt. Scarpellino insisted repeatedly that this letter would not color his view of the case and said that he was still qualified to handle it unless ‘the lawyers’ felt otherwise. He did not recuse himself from the case. Mr. Bernard’s case was continued to August 29th, because Judge Scarpellino “took all his vacation time all at once.” He ordered a second competency determination for Bernard, even though he was only deemed competent by the very same court 21 days prior to this appearance on July 1st! Scarpellino said, and this is a direct quote: “I’m not worried about the Legislature reappointing me.” His rationale for this statement he said was that he’d been reappointed last year and had 7 more years before he was subject to reappointment since Connecticut Superior court judges are appointed to 8 year terms. If the legislature chooses to do so, judges can be reviewed and removed by a constitutional process in the intervening years known as Impeachment.
Judge Scarpellino spoke extensively in praise of his own ‘transparency’ as a judge. He received the letter which so offends him on June 9th, he said. Mr. Bernard has had several court appearances, been adjudicated competent by his court, been jailed and $10,000 bond imposed since his receipt of that letter. In open court on July 22nd for the first time it was revealed finally that the reason for Mr. Bernard's jailing and the imposition of a $10,000 bond on June 27th was his illegal removal of the monitoring ankle bracelet he was required to wear as a condition of his release in order that law enforcement authorities could keep track of his whereabouts. On July 22nd for the first time he revealed publicly the existence of this letter. He also said that for the first time he brought it to the attention of the defendant and his attorney that morning. Like Saran Wrap. Transparent? Questions in this case about the conduct of Judge Scarpellino? You bet! The Judge also spoke in glowing terms about cameras in the courtroom and how open the courts are and how wonderful cameras in the courtroom are. And, being the transparent jurist that he is, how he would delight in such an open process himself.
Advertisement
I called the Meriden Court Clerks’ office first thing Monday morning July 25th to put in my request to record via audio, still and/or video photography the August 29th appearance before Judge Scarpellino. The woman who answered the phone in the Clerk’s office said she didn’t know how to hook that up, and I asked her to follow up. She cuffed the phone, and came back on and said hurry on down and file a motion quick and you can get it done that way. I would have to file a motion with the clerks’ office. So I got down there that day, and asked for a form to fill out. I was told by the woman on the phone that there is no form. She said just write something out. Having been there, done that with trying to produce just the right legalese without guidance and certain I was incompetent to write any sort of proper motion without guidance or any format, I was sent to the “Help Desk” on the second floor.
The handwritten sign on the “Help Desk” door said the “Help Desk” was closed until the next business day. Dejected, I happened to see Janis, the Judges secretary/Admin. Asst. emerge from the elevator and I sought her guidance. Nice, she sat me down in her office and told me the clerks’ office was dead wrong. I can’t file a motion she said, I’m not a party to the case. She said I should call the Administrator’s office for the Superior Courts (run by Judge Quinn, the boss of the Judges—mentioned by Scarpellino from the bench, he’s sent a copy of that letter to her) and gave me a contact name. I went out into the second floor lobby and called there. They said that the Superior Court Judges themselves decided in their annual meeting in June that cameras should be allowed in the courtrooms. But only at jury trials and arraignments everywhere except the Hartford Courts until January, because it’s being phased in and experimented with. So, since Bernard’s next appearance is neither of those, no cameras or audio equipment. So the transparent Judge was safe in touting his love of courtroom cameras on July 22nd indeed, knowing what he did of the status of courtroom cameras in the Meriden courthouse at this point. I will be requesting an interview with Judge Quinn shortly, btw.
I stopped off at the Public Defender’s office since I was in the building; it was late in the day and not too busy. The door next to the window with the hole in it was open and nobody responding, but I flagged a guy down who turned out to be an investigator for the office. I told him I was a reporter and I’d like to speak for a moment with Thomas Conroy. The investigator disappeared and 15 seconds later returned saying “He doesn’t want to speak with any reporters.” I asked him to return to Mr. Conroy and inquire as to why that was the case, since he doesn’t know the nature of my visit. He disappeared and Mr. Conroy came to the glass window and I said through the hole in the window that I was from Examiner.com and that I’d like to ask about the Bernard case. Mr. Conroy waved me off insultingly and said only “Client confidentiality” and walked off rudely. Mr. Conroy, prior to the July 22nd appearance, has spoken with the press about the case and has never met this reporter before.
I now went to visit the State’s Attorney’s office and saw a guy in a suit and tie leaning back, jovial and laughing on the phone behind the much larger glass window with the hole in it in that office. I couldn’t help but overhear his loud conversation, he was laughing uproariously and saying to his phone caller that “I want to be there, Phillip Scarpellino is” on the bench that day as he could hardly restrain his laughter. The phone call ended, he came over and I asked about the Bernard case and if someone could offer a statement. No, was the essential answer since the fellow in charge of the office was on vacation. If he’s gone, who could speak on the case? I have to wait until his return. Who’s assigned to the case? Nobody in particular. Why? Cost and we have a huge caseload. Doesn’t that eliminate accountability and make it impossible for anyone to get answers and make it possible for nobody to have to take responsibility for cases such as Bernard’s? Oh no. We went around in circles and this prosecutor was clearly entertained by the debate and engaged me for 15 minutes or more at the very end of the business day. While we spoke he buzzed in the only other two people I saw in the area, two guys in tattered jeans who reviewed notes with the prosecutor and I could hear the entire conversation. They needed to know exactly what the prosecutor would need to get a conviction on a drug case they were working I could tell. The three laughed at the notes as they read. When they were leaving and the prosecutor returned to me, I laughed and asked him if they were, in fact, undercover cops, and he said yes they were. This prosecutor blew their cover in front of a perfect stranger who had identified himself without written identification as a reporter. Wow. I won’t name this prosecutor right now, but what incompetence. He risked those cops safety and the potential of the very case they were working on, and so, by the way, did the cops.
The number listed for Judge Scarpellino, which is actually the number for the Meriden Judges altogether is: 203-238-6137. I recommend that all who care about animal cruelty, justice and competent judges call a.s.a.p. The fax for Judge Scarpellino is 203-238-6423. Flooding them with calls and faxes cannot hurt at this point and there is still time for justice for Princess. August 29th is Bernard’s next appearance.
I certainly now have many questions for the adminstrator of Connecticut's Superior Courts about the competency, transparency, and training of Clerk's office personnel, those who leave hand-written notes on "Help Center" doors deferring business to the next business day during business hours on a nice sunny July day, the Judges, the Public Defender's office and the office of the State's Attorney and the competency of one prosecutor in particular and the safety of local undercover cops when he's present in that office alone at the Meriden Superior Court. And many, many questions about the handling of this case in particular, but that of all animal abuse and neglect cases in the state of Connecticut court system. I very much look forward to meeting Judge Quinn at her earliest convenience.
.
The alleged perpetrator only faces a single misdemeanor charge and 60 days was offered!
