----- G-V-OS-4000409------------

-------- -- ---: -5TA .... E-()fe()NNEe-TletJT--------------------~-

RONALD TAYLOR

APPELLATE COURT

VS. WARDEN

: MARCH 22, 2010

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR REVIEW

The Petitioner, Ronald Taylor, respectfully asks the Appellate Court in

release of Ronald Taylor who undergoing treatment for cancer. This attempt

accordance to Connecticut Practice Book Sections 60-1, 60-2, and 60-3 to deny

the Respondent's motion for review. The Respondent is attempting to block the

smacks of a procedural ploy to block the release of two men who found innocent

after an exhaustive trial and review of the record by the habeas trial court.

The Respondent maintains that Practice Book Section 61-11 provides for

release of the Petitioner. It is arguable that this section does not apply to the

an automatic stay of the Rockville Court's orders which include the immediate

matter because Section 61-11 is applicable to "non-criminal" matters only. A writ

of habeas corpus, especially one based on actual innocence, is quasi-criminal in

nature. And therefore, Section 61-11 need not necessarily apply. It should be

noted that the right to counsel attaches in a habeas petition which is an indication

I

that at its heart the writ of habeas corpus is quasi-criminal in nature.

Even if this Honorable Court were to find Section 61-11 does apply, then

the Respondent's request for relief must still fail. The Respondent reads and claims that according to Practice Book Section 61-11 a habeas petition is a "non-

90/1:0 39'\td

SO~'\taI8WISl

,[,[,[SEEEE00

criminal case" and as such there is an automatic stay of execution of the court's

judgment. The Petitioner maintains that this position is a procedural ploy for

several reasons whose design seems to be to keep Mr. Gould and Mr. Taylor in

Section 61-11 (c) would allow a party to ask the court to terminate any stay

jail. Counsel for the Respondent should be well aware that Practice Book

Section61-11 allows the trial court to terminate any automatic stay.

"A motion to terminate a stay of execution may be brought. .. [i]f the judge tried the case is of the opinion that (1) an extension to appeal is sought, or the appeal is taken, only for delay or (2) the administration of justice so requires, the [trial] judge may at any time after a hearing, upon motion or sua sponte, order that the stay be terminated."

or to vacate an automatic stay anyway:

As Fuger, J aptly noted:

"In short, the finding that Doreen Stiles was not telling the truth in 1993- 1995 not only renders the ultimate conviction unreliable, it wholly vitiates all of the proceedings against George Gould and Ronald Taylor. These cases, in fact, go way beyond 'actual innocence.' The criminal cases should never have been initiated in the first place! These men deserve immediate relief." Habeas Decision at 56.

What the habeas trial court says, in different words, is that the "due

90/00 391;jd

SOCll;jaraWIS.L

1115££££02:

administration of justice" requires immediate execution of justice.

Indeed, the interests of justice would call for such a termination of a stay

a stay. Mr. Gould and Mr. Taylor have been wrongly jailed for 16 years and a half years. It would appear, according to the Respondent's actions, that it is

more important to the Respondent that it seek to keep two men who were found

actually innocent, after 16 days of trial at the habeas court spread out over six

months, behind bars. The Honorable Court should also consider the immediate

health concerns of Mr. Taylor. Even one more day in jail is an injustice to a man

2

that may not have many more days to live. Mr. Taylor is presently undergoing chemotherapy treatment. He had a large cancerous growth removed from his intestates. The cancer has spread to his lungs and liver.

The Respondent purposely avoids a discussion of Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-470 (a) which mandates that: "The court or judge hearing any habeas corpus shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts and issues of the case, by hearing the testimony and arguments therein, and inquire fully into the cause of imprisonment, and shall thereupon dispose of the case as law and justice requires."

The due administration of justice mandates that any stay must be vacated.

"The great purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is the immediate delivery of the party deprived of personal liberty." Leighton v. Henderson, 407 S.W. 2d 177 (1966) quoting People ex reI. Sabatino v. Jennings, 246 N.Y. 258.

Otherwise. if the stay were not vacated, the order granting the habeas proceeding would be rendered meaningless and of no value to the Petitioner. In Winnick v. Reilly, the Appellate Court held that following a habeas proceeding, the analogous situation of admitting bail must be within the power of the habeas court, otherwise "the right of appeal would be destroyed or seriously hampered, for the period ofthe pendency and determination of the appeal.. .might be considerable." 100 Conn. 291 at 298 (1924). The analogous decision of whether to admit to bail is a matter within the absolute discretion of the habeas court. Id. Consequently, lI[h]abeas lies to enforce the right of personal liberty; when that right is denied and a person is confined, the court has the power to

3

90/E0 39\1d

50Cl\1aI S:vH 51

1119EEEE0Z:

release him." Prall v. Morris. 534 P.2d 569, 571 (1975). citing Pay v. Noia. 372 U.S. 391, 430-31 (1963). Public interest is not served when the Sixth

Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation, right to effective

allowed to stand.

counsel, and due process are violated and those egregious violations are

Justice Cardozza opined in People ex rei. Sabatino v. Jennings:

"[i]t would be intolerable that a custodian adjudged to be at fault, placed by the judgment of the court in the position of a wrongdoer, should automatically, by mere notice of appeal, prolong the term of imprisonment, and frustrate the operation of the historic writ of liberty."

246 N.Y. 258, as quoted in Leighton v. Henderson, 407 S.W. 2d 177 (1966),

supra.

Connecticut case law supports the Petitioner's position. The case of

Redway v. Walker, 13 Conn. Supp. 240 (1945) is very similar procedurally to Mr.

Taylor's. In the Redway case, the inmate was released ordered to be discharged

The Habeas Court found that the witnesses presented by the Petitioner

after prevailing on his writ of habeas corpus. But the warden appealed and the

inmate moved to be admitted to bail. The judge stated that "a grave injustice"

would be done to the inmate if he won the appeal but had to remain in jail.

as of yet filed appeal is substantial. The facts found by the habeas court, when reviewed. should be done in a light most favorable to support the habeas court's

were credible. Therefore, the hurdle that the Respondent must overcome in and

9121/1;0121 39l;jd

SO~l;jar8WISl

. 1: 119££££1212:

findings of facts and ultimate decision. Siano v. Warden, 31 Conn. App. 94,95

(1993). Fuger, J.'s decision is largely a factual one based on the habeas court's'

4

assessment of the credibility of the witnesses before it. On appeal, the.

Respondent has an insurmountable burden because "[t]he habeas judge is the sale arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their

Accordingly. the Responden't motion should be denied.

testimony." Henderson v. Commissioner. 80 Conn. App. 499 (2003).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THE PETITIONER

BY:~

Peter Tsimbidaros, Esq. P.O. Box 320482 Fairfield. CT 06432 (203)333-5111

Juris No. 410371

9121/9121 39'i:1d

SO~'i:1ar8WIS.l

,[H9EEEEI2I2':

5

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that this document complies with

the provisions of Practice Book Section 66~3, and that a copy of the same was mailed postage prepaid to: Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney John

Wad dock. Office of the State's Attorney, 235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06106, Tel. (203) 503-6823, Fax. (203) 789-6400; and Supervisory Assistant

State's Attorney Michael E. O'Hare, Civil Litigation Bureau Office of the Chief

State's Attorney, 300 Corporate Place, Rocky Hill, CT. 06067, Tel. (860) 258- 5807, Fax. (860) 258-5828 on this 22nd day of March, 2010.

BY~~

Peter Tsimbidaros

90/90 39'i1d

SO~'i1ar8WISl

1115EEEE02: