- 2 -substantial assets in anticipation of being arrested. Not satisfied, however, that he had
learned of the grand juror’s inquiry, the defendant then set about to thwart the
investigation. He first asked Mr. Richter to again contact Judge Brunetti. When Richter
rebuffed the defendant’s request, the defe
ndant took matters into his own hands. On
November 17, 2010, using Richter’s telephone, the defendant called Judge Brunetti athis home to ask for the judge’s “help” with the grand jury. When Judge Brunetti
explained that he could not provide any assistance, the defendant resorted to bribery
in an effort to impede the grand juror’s work. As Judge Brunetti testified, the defendantstated “I’m only going to say this one time, it’s worth 100 G’s.”
General Statutes § 53a-147 broadly prohibits attempts to improperly influencepublic servants in their official responsibilities. State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458, 468, 374 A.2d 1107 (1977). Its scope is not limited to those who are responsible for theadministration of justice or the creation of our laws. Id. Rather, by its terms, section147 applies to all manner of public officials, largely irrespective of the degree of publictrust or authority with which the official is vested. In determining an appropriatesentence, however, the court is entitled to
and should - make such distinctions.
“A sentencing judge has very broad discretion in imposing any sentence within
the statutory limits and in exercising that discretion he may and should consider
matters that would not be admissible at trial.”
State v. Eric M., 271 Conn. 641, 649,858 A.2d 767, quoting United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181, 183-184 (2d Cir. 1972).
In the context of bribery, those matters include the impact of the defendant’s conduct
on others and on the criminal justice system. Therefore, in fashioning a sentencewithin the allowable range, a court necessarily must consider, among other things, thetype of official conduct that the defendant sought to influence, the office of the public