DocketNumber: No. HHD-CR99-0165989-T
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13678
Judges: LAVINE, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.
Filed Date: 10/7/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
3. Since the date of the alleged offenses, these matters have been the subject of intense and pervasive media coverage.
4. Said coverage has included, inter alia, items concerning the police investigation and subsequent arrest of the defendant, the personal characteristics of the victim and the effect of his death on family and friends, and the alleged involvement of the defendant in crimes unrelated to the case.
5. Said news coverage has continued and will continue in nature and intensity until and including the trial of this case.
6. The result of the foregoing is the creation of a substantial likelihood that the defendant will be CT Page 13679 denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial within the Judicial District of Hartford.
An evidentiary hearing was held beginning on September 23, 2002, and oral argument was held on September 30, 2002, in connection with the motion. During the hearing, the defendant introduced evidence of newspaper coverage of the events surrounding the crimes charged; tapes of television coverage of events concerning the crimes and transcripts of the coverage; copies of articles appearing on web sites relating to the case; and testimony by Christopher B. Barnes, associate director of the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. The State did not present evidence.
The Court has reviewed the full record of the hearing, and concludes that the motion should be denied, without prejudice, for the reasons stated below.
It is fundamental that the defendant is entitled to a fair trial before a fair jury that has not been tainted by adverse pretrial publicity. See, e.g., State v. Crafts.
But the community also has an interest in observing the judicial system work through open trials. "The right to an open public trial is a shared right of the accused and the public, the common concern being the assurance of fairness." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court.
Practice Book Section
Upon motion of the prosecuting authority or the defendant, or upon its own motion, the judicial authority may order that any pending matter be CT Page 13680 transferred to any other court location: (1) If the judicial authority is satisfied that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the case is pending (2) If the defendant and the prosecuting authority consent; or (3) Where the joint trial of information is ordered pursuant to Section
In a decision in another Hartford case, State v. Walker,
In balancing the rights of the defendant and the surrounding community, the court is guided by Practice Book Section
41-23 which provides: "Upon motion of the prosecuting authority or the defendant, or upon his own motion, the judicial authority may order that any pending criminal matter be transferred to any other court location: (1) If the judicial authority is satisfied that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the case is pending, or (2) If the defendant and the prosecuting authority agree. The defendant bears the burden of showing that he could not otherwise receive a fair and impartial trial." State v. Townsend,211 Conn. 215 ,224 ,558 A.2d 699 (1989). When extensive publicity surrounds a criminal trial, a defendant's right to an impartial jury can be affected in two ways: (1) where the pretrial publicity has so saturated the community that prejudice is presumed; and (2) when the accused can demonstrate actual prejudice in the jury panel.
In assessing "presumed prejudice" the inquiry is whether the conviction was "obtained in a trial atmosphere that had been utterly corrupted by press coverage" or the proceedings were "entirely lacking in the solemnity and sobriety to which a defendant is entitled in a system that subscribes to any notion of fairness and rejects the verdict of a mob." Murphy v. Florida,
The necessary predicate for a finding of presumptive prejudice is exemplified by Rideau v. Louisiana,
373 U.S. 723 ,726 (1963), Estes v. Texas,381 U.S. 532 ,551 (1965), and Sheppard v. Maxwell,384 U.S. 333 ,363 (1966). In Rideau, prejudice was presumed when the defendant's twenty-minute confession was televised three times in a community of 150, 000. In Estes, the courtroom was overrun by the press; television cameras were permitted within the bar, the pretrial proceedings were televised and viewed by some jurors. In Sheppard, the trial was infected not only by a background of extremely inflammatory publicity, but "bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial and newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom, hounding most of the participants, especially [the defendant]." Sheppard. supra, 384 U.S. 355.On the other hand, in determining whether actual prejudice invaded the jury box, the relevant inquiry focuses on the partiality of an individual juror. if the voir dire examination of prospective jurors is thorough and extensive, and defense counsel are permitted fully to explore the level and effects of each prospective juror's exposure to publicity concerning the defendant, then actual prejudice cannot be presumed. See State v. Marra,
195 Conn. 421 , 431-33,489 A.2d 350 (1985). See also State v. Miller,202 Conn. 463 ,480 ,522 A.2d 249 (1987).
To the extent that individuals might exhibit some knowledge of the case, it is clear "[q]ualified jurors need not . . . be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved." State v. Marra, supra,
A. Print Media Coverage: A wide variety of newspaper articles, including articles in The Hartford Courant, The New Britain Herald, The Journal Inquirer, and other newspapers, were introduced into evidence. Printouts of website articles discussing the case were also introduced into evidence. This evidence has been thoroughly reviewed. In summary, it includes extensive reporting on the crimes itself; the investigation, the arrests of the defendants; the guilty pleas of three of the defendants; the funeral of Officer Aselton; and activities undertaken by family and friends to honor Officer Aselton and keep his memory alive.
B. Radio and Television Coverage: The Court viewed tapes and reviewed transcripts of television coverage of the crime and of the investigation, the arrests of this and other defendants, and Officer Aselton's funeral. The coverage included substantial commentary by concerned citizens; by public officials, including the East Hartford chief of police and the Chief State's Attorney; and comments by the Governor at the time of Alex Sostre's arrest. Coverage indicated that the defendant had made a signed, sworn statement. In the coverage, particularly in the early stages when he was arrested, defendant was referred to as a "convicted felon" with violent propensities, and it was stated that Officer Aselton had been "ambushed." Stories reported that co-defendants had decided to cooperate with authorities against Alex Sostre. Numerous stories about activities undertaken by Officer Aselton's family, to honor Brian Aselton and assure that he will be remembered, were reviewed.
C. Survey Results:
Christopher Barnes testified about the survey he had conducted. His written report was admitted as Defense Exhibit 0. The purpose of the survey, the report indicates, was "to determine levels of awareness and knowledge regarding the case of Alex Sostre." A total of 402 telephone interviews were conducted in the Hartford Judicial District and 401 in the New Haven Judicial District. The sample error associated with the CT Page 13683 survey was stated to be plus or minus 5 percent.
Mr. Barnes concluded, as stated in the report, that "There are clear, statistically significant differences in awareness of the Sostre case between the Hartford and New Haven Judicial Districts."
For example, he testified that the survey results indicated that 74 percent of Hartford respondents "reported having heard or read about the January 1999 incident in which an East Hartford police officer was killed compared to 45 percent of New Haven respondents." While this differential may be statistically significant, it is not legally significant in and of itself, because "Qualified jurors need not . . . be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved." Murphy v. Florida.
At the same time, the survey results suggest, based on the sample, that there are large numbers of people in the Hartford area with only limited, or fragmentary, knowledge and opinions about the case. Only 10 percent of the Hartford respondents indicated they had ever heard of a person named Alex Sostre (Question 1); 43 percent of Hartford respondents indicated they didn't have knowledge about Alex Sostre (Question 2); and only 13 percent of Hartford respondents indicated they had paid "a lot of attention" to news reports about the case (Question 8). Fifty-nine percent of respondents said it would be "very easy" or "somewhat easy" to put aside anything they knew or had been told about the case and deal just with the evidence presented at trial (Question 21.)
As Judge Dewey noted in her Walker decision:
It is a major premise of a statistical case that the data base statistically mirrors reality. If it does not in substantial degree mirror reality, any inferences empirically arrived at are untrustworthy." CT Page 13684 McClesky v. Kemp,
Some of Judge Dewey's comments and concerns are applicable in this case as well. But even putting aside these concerns, defendant's evidence falls well short of persuading the Court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in Hartford. The survey results can fairly be read to indicate that the level of knowledge of the case is substantially higher in Hartford, as opposed to New Haven. The survey results also suggest that a higher percentage of people have formed preliminary opinions as to the guilt or innocence of defendant.
1. The Size of the Relevant Community. In this case, the relevant community is the Hartford Judicial District, including surrounding towns and rural areas. It is not an isolated community, a small town, or a discrete geographical area, which distinguishes it, for example, from State v. Duntz, CR 88-62645, a Litchfield County case relied upon by defendants. Unfortunately, the Hartford community is exposed to frequent reports of crimes of a notorious nature.
2. The Time Between the Crime and the Trial. Close to four years have elapsed since the time of the murder. Press coverage was intense and ongoing in the days and weeks after the crime. Then, it lessened and tapered off, with coverage becoming episodic. With trial approaching, the case is again in the news, and it is predictable that coverage will continue throughout the duration of the trial. All things considered, the frequency and intensity of the coverage has subsided substantially since the crime was committed, lessening the potential effect of publicity on prospective jurors. State v. Crafts,
3. Whether the Past Crimes of the Defendant Had Been SaturatedThroughout The Community. Some of the coverage makes reference to the defendant's criminal history. Some of the coverage also makes reference to the defendant's prior conviction for larceny in the third degree, a felony, upon which the state relies as an aggravant in this case, and court rulings relating to this prior larceny felony conviction. But the references, for the most part, were factual and not inflammatory.
4. The Amount of Media Coverage and Whether Its Treatment of the CaseIs Either Factual or Inflammatory. Not surprisingly, some of the coverage focused on the human tragedy stemming from a crime such as the murder charged in this case; the tragic feeling of loss suffered by family and friends of Officer Aselton; and steps taken to keep his memory alive and to honor his life. Some of the coverage also focused on the response by the overall community, and the law enforcement community, in particular. While some of the coverage, understandably, had emotional aspects, most of it was factual in nature. Very little could be fairly characterized as inflammatory. As our Supreme Court stated in State v. Piskorski,
5. Whether the Press Was Allowed to Make a `Circus' Out The Trial.
There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the press coverage has created the "carnival atmosphere" condemned in Sheppard v. Maxwell,
The motion is denied, without prejudice.
___________________ Douglas S. Lavine Judge Superior Court CT Page 13687
State v. Piskorski , 177 Conn. 677 ( 1979 )
Murphy v. Florida , 95 S. Ct. 2031 ( 1975 )
Smith v. Phillips , 102 S. Ct. 940 ( 1982 )
Irvin v. Dowd , 81 S. Ct. 1639 ( 1961 )
Rideau v. Louisiana , 83 S. Ct. 1417 ( 1963 )
Estes v. Texas , 85 S. Ct. 1628 ( 1965 )
Sheppard v. Maxwell , 86 S. Ct. 1507 ( 1966 )
Dobbert v. Florida , 97 S. Ct. 2290 ( 1977 )
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of ... , 106 S. Ct. 2735 ( 1986 )
McCleskey v. Kemp , 107 S. Ct. 1756 ( 1987 )