Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dominic Badaracco Maximum Dom Request by Prosecutors

Dominic Badaracco Maximum Dom Request by Prosecutors

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
Published by Helen Bennett
Dominic Badaracco
Dominic Badaracco

More info:

Published by: Helen Bennett on Sep 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





On June 27, 2013, a jury found the defendant guilty of bribery, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-147, a class C felony carrying a maximum
sentence of ten years in prison. The jury necessarily found, consistent with the state’sproof, that the defendant attempted to thwart a grand juror’s investigation into the
disappearance of his ex-wife, Mary Badaracco, by offering $100,000 to a judge of theSuperior Court to intervene in the investigation. Given the gravity of that conduct, thestate asks that the court sentence the defendant to the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by law.The investigatory grand jury at issue in this case was empaneled specifically for the purpose of investigating the disappearance of Mary Badaracco in 1985. Within amonth of the grand jur 
first hearing evidence the defendant began seekinginformation about the investigation by asking his friend, Ronald Richter, to contactJudge Robert Brunetti. Although Judge Brunetti was not involved in the investigation,he was then sitting at the Bristol courthouse, in the same Judicial District in which thegrand jury sessions were being held. After learning that the grand juror was
investigating Mary Badaracco’s disappearance the defendant, according to his own
evidence, became so concerned about his criminal liability that he liquidated
- 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
- 3 -official whom he sought to corrupt, and the function of government that he attemptedto obstruct.Measured by that standard, it is difficult to imagine a more egregious act of bribery.
 An effort to impede a grand juror’s investigation into the disappearance o
another human being by attempting to bribe a Superior Court judge strikes at the veryfoundation of our criminal justice system.
Dominic Badaracco’s
proven conductdemonstrates a thorough disregard for the purpose of the grand jury inquiry and theinterests of victims and their families, a complete lack of respect for the office of a judge of the Superior Court, and an abject disrespect for the rule of law. In thesecircumstances, the only appropriate sentence is the maximum allowed by statute.STATE OF CONNECTICUTBy ______________________________________ LEONARD C. BOYLE
Deputy Chief State’s Attorney
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
 300 Corporate Place, Rocky Hill, CT 06067Juris No. 430172

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->