Due Process

Domestic violence cases have sadly dominated Connecticut news in recent years. Too many disgruntled former spouses and paramours have resorted to harassment and violence rather than graciously walking away from a failed relationship. In recent years, Connecticut has made great strides in pursuing and prosecuting this behavior. In many cases it works. Sadly, in some it didn’t and there were violent confrontations and deaths.

Immediate protective orders issued by arresting police and G.P.S. tracking devices are new weapons in the fight to avoid escalating violence. Vertical prosecution is a concept that prevents revolving door cases by insuring that the same prosecutors and judges are assigned to the domestic violence docket. Victim’s advocates are available to be the spokespersons for the complainants. The Family Violence Education Program is a pre-trial diversionary program aimed at educating and reforming offenders. When someone contacts the police and issues a complaint they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The system does and should support the victims; but what happens when the accused is really the victim?

Recently I resolved a case for a client who had a longstanding series of arrests for continuous contact with a former paramour. In the past this gentleman had admitted his conduct and accepted the penalties imposed, which included a standing criminal protective order. The violation of such an order can lead to felony prosecution. Recently, the complainant made a series of accusations that led to a total of five new charges, including violating that order, violating a form of probation, and stalking.

We were on a collision course for trial and possible eventual incarceration. The client was adamant that any encounters were mere chance and not intended. None of the conduct alleged was violent or threatening. The arrest had sparked front page headlines in the local newspaper that rivaled the announcement of the first moon landing or the invasion of Normandy. One particular accusation was that the “victim” came upon the accused’s vehicle by chance and followed it for a short distance when she then claimed that he pulled in a gas station, saw her and pulled out behind her to follow her. There was a video surveillance camera that showed the vehicles in proximity to each other, hers on the street and his moving parallel in the gas station parking lot.

The client insisted he had pulled in to the station to purchase something at the mini-mart located there. In pre-trial discussions with the veteran prosecutor and his inspector we produced evidence that suggested the client was telling the truth. Further investigation by the prosecution then produced a receipt for merchandise time stamped one minute before the time signature on the video surveillance film. The dramatic evidence supported our contention that the complainant had apparently seen the defendant pull into the gas station and then, for reasons we can only speculate about, stopped, as he went in the store and shopped, and waited for him to pull out. This devastating blow to her credibility led to the dismissal and withdrawal of all charges.

This client was lucky. There was video and documentary evidence to support his claim to innocence. There was also a diligent prosecutor and an impartial investigator who took the time to assess the information we provided. The decision to withdraw prosecution was a courageous one, and one that in some circles could expose the prosecutor to criticism. In the finest traditions of our adversarial criminal justice system both sides worked together to ensure the proper result.

The case is a rarity, and certainly doesn’t suggest that there are many instances of “victim’s” abusing the system. Police and prosecutors should continue to give complainants the benefit of the doubt; but that should not mean having tunnel vision and being unwilling to listen to the other side’s claims. The presumption of innocence still has a part to play in the process.

Rich Meehan is a senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com