You are on page 1of 351

DOCKET NOS.

CR14-0675616-T
CR13-0200821-T
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V.
EDWARD F. TAUPIER

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX
AT MIDDLETOWN
JANUARY 19, 2016

MOTION BY ATTORNEY RACHEL M. BAIRD TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCES


Attorney Rachel M. Baird, the undersigned and counsel for the above-referenced Edward
F. Taupier (Taupier), hereby moves pursuant to Practice Book 3-101 to withdraw her
appearances as good cause exists for such withdrawals.
I. RELEVANT FACTS
A. Pretrial, Trial, and Sentencing in State v. Taupier, Docket No. CR14-0675616-T
Prior to the commencement of trial in State v. Taupier, Docket No. CR14-0675616-T, the
undersigned filed a written motion and memorandum, dated March 4, 2015, to suppress evidence
of firearms and ammunition seized on August 29, 2014, from Taupiers Cromwell residence
pursuant to one warrant and later seized from the Connecticut State Police (CSP) pursuant to a
another warrant. The undersigneds motion relied upon the fourth and fourteenth amendments to
the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7, of the Connecticut Constitution in asserting
that both seizures were unconstitutional.

The undersigned has not complied with certain requirements of Practice Book 3-10 that apply when a party will
be left without representation if a motion to withdraw is granted. In this case, Attorney Norm Pattis has filed
appearances in both of the above-captioned matters and in fact his office represented Taupier at a bond hearing held
on January 15, 2016, in State v. Taupier, Docket No. CR14-0675616-T.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED


TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED

The court heard testimony on March 9, 2015, from five sworn officers assigned to the CSP
Central District Major Crime Squad relevant to Taupiers motion to suppress: Trooper Daniel
DeJesus, Sergeant Rafael Medina III (currently Lieutenant Medina), Trooper Andrew Katrenya,
Sergeant Ralph Soda, and Trooper Jennilee Fratellenico. (Ex. A, March 9, 2015, Hearing
Transcript)2 During the course of cross-examination on March 9, 2015, the defense questioned
each of the prosecutions witnesses about the search warrant executed on August 29, 2014, at
Taupiers residence. Trooper DeJesus testified that Lieutenant Medina had changed the warrant
after it was signed by a judge and executed at Taupiers residence:
THE COURT:
TROOPER DEJESUS:

Ill allow the question to be answered, if you can. The question is,
where is the copy of the warrant you showed Judge Mullarkey?
The copy as it was originally presented to Judge Mullarkey -- well,
it doesn't exist as it originally was presented to Judge Mullarkey
because the -- as I explained earlier the -- after he did sign we
redacted, and by we I mean Sergeant Medina specifically,
redacted the name that was on it. So I don't, I dont believe theres a
-- there is a copy at all that -- I dont know if Im answering your
question. I dont believe theres a copy that exists at all that has what
was originally presented to Judge Mullarkey because thats what
was actually redacted.

(Ex. A, March 9, 2015, Hearing Transcript at 72:2-16) The undersigned had previously on March
4, 2015, submitted a Request for Criminal Investigation to the CSP Deputy Commissioner, Colonel
Brian F. Meraviglia, stating and alleging:
This is a request for a criminal investigation upon allegations that a
warrant, issued pursuant to General Statutes 29-38c, was redacted
and altered without affirmation or oath subsequent to its issuance
and execution and prior to its return to the court. Specifically,
Connecticut State Police (CSP) Sergeant Medina tampered with a
2

Exhibit A, the March 9, 2015, hearing transcript, is 197 pages and may be found in its entirety at
http://amnewsnetwork.com/420-2/. A copy of the entire transcript has been provided to the parties as a courtesy.

warrant after it was signed by a judge and executed by the CSP when
he altered the warrant by redaction and the addition of language.1
Sergeant Medina then deliberately omitted the date of his redactions
and alterations to conceal that a warrant issued by a judge upon oath
and affirmation by Trooper Katrenya and Trooper DeJesus was
redacted and altered after it was executed and prior to its return to
the court. Sergeant Medina acted in concert at and subsequent to the
tampering to further the scheme with the following individuals, so
far known to the undersigned: Trooper DeJesus, Trooper Katrenya,
Assistant States Attorney Vicki Melchiorre, Assistant States
Attorney Brenda Hans, The Honorable Edward J. Mullarkey.
(Ex. C, March 4, 2015, Letter to Colonel Meraviglia from Attorney Baird) Colonel Meraviglia
never responded to the request for a criminal investigation, the court sustained a motion to quash
a subpoena for Colonel Meraviglia to testify at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and the
status of the request for a criminal investigation remains unknown to the complainant. The court
commented in a ruling from the bench on March 10, 2015:
At this point I needn't reiterate all of the flaws identified by the
defendant, and properly so, that were present in the warrant itself, in
the process that the police used in executing that warrant, the
changes that were subsequently made to it, the fact a copy wasn't
left with the defendant nor was a return made properly. Im going
to cover those things shortly in my remarks.
(Ex. B, March 10, 2015, Hearing Transcript at 72:13-20) 3 The court subsequently addressed the
flaws identified by the defendant in more detail:
In the next part of my remarks I want to discuss the deficiencies.
Let me say at the outset that I am not entirely unsympathetic to the
defendant's claim here that the flaws in this warrant and in its
manner of execution, particularly when viewed under the totality of
the circumstances, presents a wholly unflattering portrait of the
efforts of police to secure and execute this warrant. The mistakes
3

Exhibit B, the March 10, 2015, hearing transcript, is 125 pages and may be found in its entirety at
http://amnewsnetwork.com/423-2/. A copy of the entire transcript has been provided to the parties as a courtesy.

that have been identified during the hearing should not have been
made in the first place and some, if not many of them, should have
been caught by someone before they impacted on the process itself.
The police who prepared the risk warrant, while not to be criticized
for using a prior warrant as a template, need to be hyper vigilant in
todays cut and paste world to ensure that their final product is
correct. The police should have caught the error on the warrant page
and seen that the name that had appeared on the warrant page was
not that of Mr. Taupier. That should have been caught and if not by
the affiants themselves then certainly by their supervisor who
apparently, according to the testimony, proofread it. Now, I realize
that, as I said, with cutting and pasting, these things happen and
these are warrants that are being prepared not by robots but by
human beings and mistakes are to be made and will be made. I
realize also that the warrant page, Page 4 of the application affidavit
and warrant package, is the only page that the police don't sign. The
police dont sign Page 4. They sign the application for the warrant
on Page 1. They swear to their affidavit on Pages 2 and 3 usually.
They don't sign Page 4. So maybe one could say that, well, they
dont sign that page so its more understandable that there could be
a mistake there that the judge is going to have to catch, if anyone
will. But the police are the ones who prepare the language on the
warrant itself for the judge to consider. So at least in the first
instance, its the police themselves that must bear the responsibility
for the accuracy of the information. But there's plenty of -- I dont
mean to highlight just the police errors here because theres plenty
of people who should have caught this. In addition to their
supervisor within the Connecticut State Police, the warrant was
then, according to the testimony, reviewed by a prosecutor. While a
risk warrant need not be signed by a prosecutor, its my
understanding that this warrant, and it is consistent with a general
practice I think, which I have some knowledge of a general practice
that prosecutors review all search warrants or risk warrants. And a
prosecutor, Attorney Melchiorre at the States Attorneys Office in
Hartford, apparently was tasked with reviewing the proposed risk
warrant before it was presented to a judge. She did so, at least one
can assume she did based on the testimony I heard from the
witnesses who did testify. She should have caught the mistake and
seen that the language on the warrant page didnt square with the
language on the application or the affidavit. And just to make sure I
identify all that should have caught this, the judge himself should

have caught this mistake when he signed the warrant. The judge
should not have misdated the warrant, either. There was testimony
about the judge putting the date down of August 28th rather than
August 29th, that should not have happened.
(Ex. B, March 10, 2015, Hearing Transcript at 74:12-76:26) The court denied Taupiers motion to
suppress in all substantial respects. Taupier was convicted on all counts and appeared for
sentencing on January 12, 2016.
B. Post-Sentencing Search and Seizure Warrant
The court sentenced Taupier to 18 months incarceration at sentencing on January 12, 2016,
set a $90,000 cash appeal bond, and ordered that bond post at the courthouse instead of the jail
facility to allow the defense and prosecution to be heard on conditions. A hearing on conditions
was scheduled for 2 PM on January 15, 2016, after the court was notified on January 14, 2016, of
Taupiers intent to post bond. Upon information and belief, a prosecution inspector, Mark Miele
(Inspector Miele), then sent an email to Dr. Marina Golli (Dr. Golli) at 3:39 PM on January
14, 2016, asking Dr. Golli to contact Inspector Miele because the CSP wished to speak to her. (Ex.
D, Email from Inspector Miele to Dr. Golli)4 The CSP then obtained a warrant at 1:16 PM on
January 15, 2016, to seize all computers and computer-related devices and media from Taupiers
residence. The bond hearing proceeded at 2 PM on January 15, 2016. During the hearing the
defense was unaware that a search and seizure warrant had been signed.
At the conclusion of the hearing the undersigned and legal investigator Edward A. Peruta
(Peruta) were seated in a conference room on the third floor of the courthouse discussing a

The undersigned understands from representations that Marina Golli is a medical doctor.

scheduled 4 PM meeting at Connecticut Valley Hospital when prosecution investigator, Kenneth


McNamara, told Peruta and the undersigned that Inspector Miele requested a meeting on the first
floor in the states attorneys offices. Within this time frame a male greeted the undersigned and
when the undersigned did not recognize him he conveyed his identity as Lieutenant Medina. Peruta
and the undersigned proceeded to meet Inspector Miele on the first floor of the courthouse but
instead were met by two male officers and one female officer in the waiting area of the states
attorneys offices. The officers asked to speak to Peruta and the undersigned whereupon all
relocated to a nearby conference room. The officers informed Peruta and the undersigned of the
warrant that had been signed earlier that day at 1:16 PM to seize computers and computer-related
devices and media from Taupiers Cromwell residence.
Peruta left the courthouse and in consideration of the presence of the officers and their
expressed desire to speak with Taupier upon his release the undersigned remained. The officers
approached the undersigned after Peruta left between two and four times during the next hour. One
of the officers stated that the undersigned may have issues representing Taupier as the undersigned
could be a witness. Based on experience and training and the fact that the officer had approached
the undersigned to convey this information only after the undersigneds legal investigator had left
the courthouse, the undersigned considered this vague statement from the officer to be an attempt
to entice the undersigned to breach the attorney-client privilege by creating a concern on the part
of the undersigned about what the officer was referencing. The undersigned was free to leave, not
overborne by the show of authority, and so declined to speak with the officers although as a
courtesy the undersigned provided Perutas cell phone number in response to a request for contact

information. When Taupier was released the officers approached Taupier and on behalf of Taupier
the undersigned declined a meeting.
C. The January 15, 2016, Search and Seizure at Taupiers Residence
The undersigned transported Taupier to his residence where the undersigned, in cautious
estimation, viewed between 12 and 20 officers upon arrival. The undersigned remained at the
residence parked in the driveway until the officers left approximately three hours later. During this
time Peruta, in his media capacity as representative of American News and Information Services,
Inc., arrived at the scene to record the police activity. Lieutenant Medina, without prompting or
any reference by Peruta to Lieutenant Medinas involvement in redacting and altering the search
warrant executed on August 29, 2014, gloated, according to Peruta, that even after Peruta had sued
Lieutenant Medina the CSP still promoted him from Sergeant to Lieutenant. Peruta responded that
neither he nor the undersigneds office had sued Lieutenant Medina to which Lieutenant Medina
responded that it did not matter anyway because it was dismissed. (Ex. E, Docket and Ruling in
Taupier v. Katrenya, dated June 29, 2015)
II. CONCLUSION
The chain of events after the conclusion of the January 15, 2016, bond hearing including
but not limited to the ruse employed by the states attorneys office to draw the undersigned and
Peruta from the third to the first floor of the courthouse where three officers, not Inspector Miele,
clearly had intended to meet with the undersigned, a later reference by one of the officers to the
undersigneds status as a witness when the undersigned was unaccompanied by her legal
investigator as a witness to any discussion with the officer, the animus emanating from Lieutenant

Medinas comments and demeanor toward Peruta at the scene of the search and seizure on January
15, 2016, preceded by Lieutenant Medinas uninvited and intrusive efforts to make the undersigned
aware of his presence in the courthouse on January 15, 2016, provide good cause to believe that
the CSP, the Cromwell Police Department, and other law enforcement agencies unknown to the
undersigned, have retaliatory animus arising from the undersigneds representation of Taupier and
such animus toward his counsel cannot benefit Taupier at this time.
For all the foregoing reasons good cause regretfully exists for this court to grant the
undersigneds motion to withdraw the appearances as Taupiers counsel.
DEFENDANT
EDWARD F. TAUPIER

BY:

_________________________________________
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Rachel M. Baird & Associate (JURIS 434409)
15 Burlington Road
Harwinton, CT 06791
Tel: 860-605-9340
Fax: 860-605-9343
Email: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
His Attorney

ORDER
The Court, upon due consideration hereby Orders the Defendants Motion
Granted / Denied.
___________________________________
Judge / Clerk of the Superior Court

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Practice Book 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the above was served by
electronic transmission on January 19, 2016:
Attorney Norm Pattis
Pattis Law Firm
Email: norm@normpattis.com
Attorney Brenda Hans
Email: Brenda.hans@ct.gov
Edward F. Taupier

___________________________________
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Commissioner of the Superior Court

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A

MMX-CR14-0675616T

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLESEX

AT MIDDLETOWN,
CONNECTICUT

MARCH 9, 2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

V.
EDWARD F. TAUPIER

Suppression Hearing

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID P. GOLD, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S :
Representing the State:
ATTORNEY BRENDA HANS
Assistant States Attorney
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

Representing the Defendant:


ATTORNEY RACHEL M. BAIRD
3 Church Street
Suite 3B
Torrington, CT 06790-5247
Also Present:
ATTORNEY ADAM P. MAURIELLO (representing Judge Mullarkey)
ATTORNEY NEIL PARILLE (representing Colonel Meraviglia)

Recorded & Transcribed By:


Dana Wilson
Court Recording Monitor
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

1
1
2

(Proceedings begin at 9:39 a.m.)


THE COURT:

Ladies and gentlemen, were here

today to rule on some of these preliminary motions.

In order for me to sure that our -- or my anticipated

schedule isn't changed I just want to make sure that

nothing I have just received changes anything.

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

THE COURT:

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

If I may, Your Honor?

Yes.
I do have a motion to quash

10

that you havent received yet and an appearance on

11

behalf of Judge Mullarkey.

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

13

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

14
15

Thank you.
Thank you.

(Pause)
THE COURT:

Well, that I suspect pertains to one

16

of the issues that we were going to address today and

17

that is the claim Attorney Baird has raised that the

18

risk warrant should be suppressed because of her

19

claim that Judge Mullarkey was not a neutral and

20

detached magistrate when he signed that warrant.

21

So I suspect, Attorney Baird, given that this is

22

called -- given that Ive just been handed a motion

23

to quash I take it, did you serve a subpoena on Judge

24

Mullarkey?

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

We did.

We served eight

26

subpoenas, we delivered them to the marshal on

27

Thursday the 5th.

It appears they may not have been

2
1

served till Friday the 6th.

case testimony is needed about actual service.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

He is on his way here in

He, the marshal?


Yes.
Okay.

Are the other motions --

subpoenas rather, are the other seven subpoenas that

youve referenced relating as well to the neutral and

detached magistrate claim?

9
10

ATTY. BAIRD:

They relate to the motion to

suppress.

11

THE COURT:

Well, which aspect of it?

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

I have four officers from the

13

Connecticut State Police who are here in a side room

14

and theyre going to testify about the date the

15

warrant was signed.

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

Okay.

Thats fine, good.

And theyre going to testify about

the -- what were alleging is a redaction.

19

THE COURT:

Right.

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

Good.

When and how that came about.

Good.
Communications that are referenced

23

in Trooper DeJesuss narrative about notifying Judge

24

Mullarkey and States Attorney Vicki Melchiorre.

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

All fine.

Thats all good.

So those four are here.

subpoenaed Assistant States Attorney Vicki

We also

3
1

Melchiorre to testify about the neutral part of it

because any communication -- she was the one involved

in the arrest warrant, signing it, which we believe

was signed at the same time as the risk warrant, she

would have been present.

according to Trooper DeJesus, of the redaction.

THE COURT:

Also she was notified,

But why do you -- this is under the

neutral and detached magistrate claim or under the

other misinformation on the risk warrant?

10
11

ATTY. BAIRD:

I believe that Attorney

Melchiorres testimony may fall under both.

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

Definitely the redaction part.

All right.
Weve also -- we also

16

subpoenaed -- I think that adds up to four, five,

17

six -- Colonel Meraviglia from the Connecticut State

18

Police and he was actually the one in receipt of my

19

letter to him alleging that there may have been

20

criminal acts by three state troopers in altering a

21

warrant, and I had subpoenaed him and certain

22

documents to see if he followed up on those, on that

23

request.

24
25
26
27

THE COURT:

Why would that be relevant on a

suppression motion?
ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, one of our offers of proof

is that there is an administrative manual that the

4
1

state police go by and in there it specifically says,

do not ever change a warrant after it is issued, so

he would testify to that.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

recall who that was?

Okay.

And he would testify -Whos the eighth if you can offhand

ATTY. BAIRD:

I have all the copies here.

9
10

And who's the eighth?

(Pause)
ATTY. BAIRD:

Oh, and by the way, the Colonel

11

says hes not available today and I said he could be

12

placed on call.

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

15

THE COURT:

16

Are you here --

17

ATTY. PARILLE:

Okay.
And the other one was Chief --

Excuse me for just one moment.

Yeah.

18

the Attorney General.

19

colonel, if I could have --

20

THE COURT:

Neil Parille, Office of

Im here on behalf of the

Let me just -- well get to you in

21

just a second.

Im just trying to get, sort of, our

22

schedule set for today.

23

minute, as I will Mr. Mauriello also as it pertains

24

to Judge Mullarkey.

25

The eighth?

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

Ill be with you in just a

The eighth was Chief Anthony

Salvatore from the Cromwell Police Department and we

5
1

resolved the subpoena, he provided me 33 pages of the

documents I had requested and it was represented to

me that the State received the same 33 pages.

4
5

THE COURT:

And I guess Ill find out what those

are in the event I need to.

ATTY. BAIRD:

So we subpoenaed eight, four are

here, two are moving to quash and one was released

from the subpoena.

THE COURT:

Four are here, those are the

10

troopers.

Chief Salvatore has been released because

11

you have the records you want.

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

Right, uh-huh.
What about Ms. Melchiorre, do you

know if she was served or?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

My understanding is she left a

16

note with the States Attorneys Office, so I will

17

let them address it.

18

formally.

19
20
21

THE COURT:

I have not heard anything

All right.

So I guess that adds up

to
ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, the State just had

22

received a note that said that Vicki Melchiorre was

23

not properly served and wont be here today.

24
25

(Pause)
THE COURT:

Ive also received today a filing

26

uncaptioned defendant's supplement to motion to

27

suppress evidence of firearms and ammunition dated

6
1

March 9th, I believe it was just e-mailed moments ago

to the clerk.

Im looking through it.

because I see a transcript attached to it, is this

information to be considered in the issue involving

Judge Mullarkey?

Im looking -- I haven't read it, but

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

Is this, Attorney Baird,

Yes.

Okay.
Your Honor, I have not had an

10

opportunity to review that 15-page document and I

11

dont believe Attorney Baird has had an opportunity

12

to review my memorandum in opposition to the motion

13

to suppress, so I just handed it to her, Your Honor,

14

and it we could just maybe after we finish the

15

housekeeping matters, if we could have, like, a 20-

16

minute recess just too make sure we read all the

17

documents.

18

I think it would serve both parties well.

THE COURT:

All right.

Well, we can certainly

19

do that, but Im trying to accommodate counsel that

20

are here today in connection with their motions to

21

quash the subpoenas.

22
23

(Pause)
THE COURT:

All right.

Well, I think the issues

24

presented in the service or attempted service of

25

Judge Mullarkey may take us a little more time to

26

resolve and I may want to hear from the other

27

witnesses first who are here before I rule on the

7
1

subpoena of Judge Mullarkey or directed to Judge

Mullarkey.

the attorney general, Assistant Attorney General

whos here on behalf of a state police colonel.

Could you identify yourself again, please.

ATTY. PARILLE:

So lets direct our attention first to

the Attorney General.

THE COURT:

ATTY. PARILLE:

10
11
12

THE COURT:

Again, Neil Parille, Office of

Could you spell your last name.


P, as in Peter, A-R-I-L-L-E.

Thank you.

Is there a written

motion to quash?
ATTY. PARILLE:

I have not.

I just got handed

13

this file as I was leaving Friday afternoon, and this

14

is the first that Ive heard actually what the reason

15

is for this subpoena.

16

something that could be resolved.

17

an issue what the A&O Manual says or what proper

18

police procedure is, I assume somebody is available

19

at the state police other than the colonel who heads

20

the state police.

21
22

THE COURT:

It seems to me that this is


I mean, if theres

I don't know exactly what it is that

Attorney Baird seeks to offer.

23

So, Attorney Baird, whats your proffer?

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

We sent a letter to the colonel, I

25

believe it was on March 4th of 2015 indicating that

26

it was our belief that there had been a violation of

27

state statute in altering a previously issued and

8
1

executed warrant.

In my subpoena, which requested

also documents, I asked for any records that he

drafted, prepared or sent responsive to that request

for a criminal investigation after it was received at

8:59 a.m. on March 4th, 2014 [sic].

for versions of the search and seizure warrant for

firearms that are in the possession of the

Connecticut State Police, and I asked him for about

nine other documents having to do with records of

I also asked him

10

communications in case he had followed up on the

11

report and gathered information.

12

it, then he doesnt have it.

13
14

THE COURT:

What report are we speaking about?

The report is your letter to him?

15
16

If he doesnt have

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes, my letter dated March 4th,

2015.

17

THE COURT:

All right.

What would be -- to the

18

extent that your request of the colonel are direct

19

toward information or actions he may have taken after

20

his receipt of your letter, in what way would that be

21

relevant to anything that were doing here in this

22

case?

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

To determine whether and to what

24

extent the credibility of the officers may be

25

impeached.

26
27

THE COURT:
that means.

Im not certain I understand what

Could you explain how his steps would be

9
1

relevant to determine what the officers -- how this

Court should determine the credibility of the

officers?

Or the troopers, rather.

ATTY. BAIRD:

For example, perhaps not in

Connecticut, but in many states there are Brady lists

that are maintained, Brady lists being associated

with the Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland

where if an officer has a history of incidents or one

or more incidents that affect his credibility or

10

impugn his credibility then the defense has a right

11

to know that so that thats available to impeach the

12

officer.

13

any Internal Affairs report or if there is a pending

14

Internal Affairs investigation into the acts that we

15

allege are somewhat or we do allege theyre criminal

16

in nature then that is exculpatory information if

17

there is a pending IA, if theres an investigation

18

thats being done to follow our March 4th request for

19

an investigation then that all falls under Brady and

20

the defense has a right to know what that information

21

is.

22

In this case the Connecticut State Police

THE COURT:

Well, I don't have the subpoena in

23

front of me, its difficult for me to rule on it

24

without hearing what the subpoena seeks and perhaps

25

even more importantly, like the subpoena for Judge

26

Mullarkey Im tending to think that the relevance of

27

any of the things that you seek may turn on what the

10
1

officers who have been subpoenaed and who are here

have to say.

aside the issue of the neutral and detached

magistrate question, putting that aside, the issues

that are presented to me here concern the firearms

and ammunition that were seized from Mr. Taupier's

house pursuant to the risk warrant signed by Judge

Mullarkey on the 29th of August.

certain claims concerning that warrant in an effort

10

to cause me to suppress the evidence that was found

11

in Mr. Taupiers home.

12

raised, and I dont believe youve added any claims,

13

first, that Judge Mullarkey placed a date of August

14

28th, 2014 on the warrant rather than August 29th,

15

which is the date placed on it by the affiants.

16

next, that some information on the warrant itself may

17

have been altered after the warrant was signed by

18

Judge Mullarkey.

19

Its my understanding that, putting

You have raised

The claims were that you

And

Then, as I say, we have the separate question as

20

to whether or not Judge Mullarkey's comments in an

21

incident that occurred during calendar year 2013

22

would cause this Court to conclude that he was not

23

acting as a neutral magistrate.

24

claim that the defendant himself was not provided a

25

copy of the warrant when it was executed.

26

lay out the landscape?

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

So theres also a

Does that

11
1

THE COURT:

Okay.

Then here's what I think

were going to do, Im not going to rule on the

motions to quash yet because I still feel that once I

hear from the troopers who can testify as to what did

and didn't happen at the time the warrant was signed

and subsequent thereto, once I've heard that then I

will be in a position to determine whether or not

anything or any records that the colonel might

possess would be properly subject to the subpoena.

10

And I next will have to take up the question of

11

relating to the neutral and detached magistrate

12

question.

13

So to accommodate counsel, I leave -- do you

14

want to wait around and well see what the troopers

15

have to say, and then we can try to identify the

16

issues, do you want to go back to your offices and be

17

available later if we need you?

18

getting all of this done today, all these motions,

19

because weve already delayed jury selection three

20

days and I didnt want to delay it any further.

21

I was hopeful of

I am going to want from you, Attorney Baird, an

22

offer of proof as to the neutral and detached

23

magistrate issue.

24

last in session on the substantive issues in this

25

case on Wednesday I had asked you whether or not your

26

claim that Judge Mullarkey was not neutral was based

27

on, and was based solely on, in court statements that

My notes reflect that when we were

12
1

His Honor made during the course of an unrelated

hearing in 2013 in which you were counsel of record.

I am guessing that those statements may have been

made in the matter of State v. Peterson.

correct in my guess?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Am I

Yes.
All right.

So I had asked and you

have complied with my request that I have the

opportunity to read Judge Mullarkeys in court

10

comments, there are, I think, two transcript excerpts

11

attached to your supplemental motion dated March 9th.

12

One of those transcripts is from July 11th, 2013 and

13

may have occurred during jury selection based on the

14

caption on the face sheet of the transcript, and

15

there is an additional transcript from July 12th, the

16

next day.

17

in what procedural setting those comments were made.

18

But it was my understanding that that was your

19

proffer.

I dont know, because I havent read it,

Am I incorrect?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

You are correct.


So what else would -- what I guess

22

Im going to need from you is why Judge Mullarkeys

23

subpoena should not be quashed, the words on the page

24

are the words on the page.

25

said something in these transcripts then thats a

26

finding Ill make based on what the transcripts say.

27

So why would Judge Mullarkeys testimony be required?

If Judge Mullarkey has

13
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

There was one statement that

although it was made in court with the court

reporter, the clerk, the prosecutor, myself, my

client and an intern and at least two people in the

audience and the marshals present, it was made in

court but just before it was made the Court asked the

asked court reporter to turn off the recorder.

so although that was made in court, the court

reporter was asked to turn off the recorder just

10
11

And

before it was made from the bench.


THE COURT:

Is there something in one of these

12

transcripts that says, reporter asked to go off the

13

record or something or not?

14
15
16

ATTY. BAIRD:
make sure?
THE COURT:

Yes.

17
18

If I could just have a moment to

(Pause)
ATTY. BAIRD:

I will look.

For some reason I

19

dont have the next page, the 147.

20

during break.

21

THE COURT:

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

I will look

Is that where you think it is?


Yes.

So thats on the July 11th one?


11th, it was on the 11th.

All right.

I have 140 --

146.

I have 147 too.

14
1
2

ATTY. BAIRD:
copy.

Oh, do you? I don't have in my

Okay.

THE COURT:

I have

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Let me see if
Im looking at Page 147, I don't see

something which says off the record.

There is one

parenthetical that appears on 147 which is that Ms.

Manascalco (phonetic) enters courtroom for continued

voir dire.

But whether or not it shows it on the

10

transcript, its your claim that Judge Mullarkey

11

asked the court reporter to go off the record?

12
13

ATTY. BAIRD:

I think that it happened on Page

21 of the July 11th transcript where it says, recess.

14

THE COURT:

15

it says recess?

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

THE COURT:

Okay.

Let me look.

Page 21, where

I believe, yes.
All right.

So well, even then you

18

say you heard it, your client heard it, and

19

apparently others heard it.

20

the evidence I should be considering in determining

21

whether there is reason to conclude that Judge

22

Mullarkey was not a neutral and detached magistrate,

23

the entirety of your proffer is the words that appear

24

of record and which are attached to your March 9th

25

supplemental motion and second, certain in court,

26

off-the-record statements which you and others

27

contend Judge Mullarkey made.

So your proffer as to

Have I identified all

15
1

of the evidence that you would be offering in support

of your motion as it pertains to the neutral and

detached magistrate question?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

And the reason why I also

provided a motion that I filed is because the motion

details what the article by Professor Bogus was

about.

8
9

THE COURT:

Okay.

Fair enough.

All right.

Then given the law, which Mr. Mauriello cites

10

regarding the Court's duty here to avoid whenever

11

possible the summoning of a sitting judge to

12

testify --

13

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

14

THE COURT:

Thats correct, Your Honor.

-- then what Im going to require

15

you, Attorney Baird, to do, if you wish to call

16

witnesses that are alleged to have heard the

17

statement, the off-the-record statement, and before I

18

need to address the motion to quash I can decide

19

whether those statements that a witness will have to

20

tell me were made, off-the-record, if I decide that

21

that off-the-record -- those -off-the-record

22

statements, which I may assume to be true -- I will

23

assume to have been stated for the purpose of the

24

motion in the first instance, whether those

25

statements coupled with the transcript comments would

26

cause me to feel that it is --there is a compelling

27

need and extraordinary circumstances exist to require

16
1

Judge Mullarkey to testify.

But that neednt be

decided unless I feel that what is written in the

transcripts from July 11, 2013 supplemented by

whatever it is that a witness or witnesses will

testify he said off-the-record, if I think even

accepting the truth of all that theres not

sufficient -- there is not a sufficing basis to

question Judge Mullarkeys neutrality or level of

detach -- that he acted as a detached magistrate then

10

you'll have made your record and we wont need Judge

11

Mullarkey.

12

proceed?

Do you agree thats the way we should

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

14

THE COURT:

I do.
Okay.

Then, Attorney Mauriello, I

15

suspect I won't know where we stand until Ive read

16

the transcript pages, which I was just provided this

17

morning, and Ive heard from any witnesses.

18

have the clerk call you.

19

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Okay.

So Ill

Are we anticipating

20

that counsels going to subpoena marshals or court

21

reporters or --

22

THE COURT:

Well, I dont know.

I suspect - it

23

would seem to me in the first instance what I may

24

do -- you claim to have heard it as well?

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

26

THE COURT:

27

Oh, yes.

Yes.

Well, perhaps then we can proceed in

the first instance just by a proffer, which I can

17
1

accept for purposes of the argument, right?

if I believe that the actual words have to be

considered by me then maybe Id say then youre going

to have to backup your proffer with evidence coming

from, I guess, your client or others that may have

heard it, because you did mention other court

personnel.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

10

And then

Right.
But, I guess, well start with a

proffer.

11

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

And if youd like - are you

13

prepared - so Attorney Mauriello is here now and I

14

may excuse him, are you in a position, Attorney

15

Baird, to make the proffer now as to what it is that

16

you would be prepared to demonstrate through

17

witnesses, Judge Mullarkey said when the court

18

reporter was not on the record?

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

I am, Your Honor, and one of the

20

reasons Im prepared to do that is because I

21

memorialized it right away in my motion.

22

THE COURT:

So is it in the March 9th motion?

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

It is.

All right.

Let me take a look.

Its actually in my motion that I

26

filed in that case and I lifted it out of that motion

27

and put it in the March 9th motion, and I also have

18
1
2

one witness here who was present at the time.


THE COURT:

All right.

Well, let me look atso

should I be looking at the motion for recusal and

disqualification of judge dated July 15th?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

Which starts, sort of, as Page 3 of

your March 9th motion?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

10

Because

Yes.

Okay.

ATTY. BAIRD:

And on Page 2 of the July 15th,

11

2013 motion I begin a narrative of what happened.

12

And then on Page 3 at the top I talk about when the

13

court went off the record.

14

THE COURT:

15

And, Mr. Mauriello, do you have that?

16

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

17

THE COURT:

18
19

Okay.

Give me a moment.

I do, Your Honor.


And you know where Attorney

Baird has directed you?


ATTY. MAURIELLO:

20
21

All right.

Yes.

(Pause)
THE COURT:

All right.

Ive had a chance to

22

read pages -- the pages from the Christopher Peterson

23

motion.

24

approximately 3:20 p.m. the court stated, according

25

to this motion anyway, that those who support the

26

Second Amendment should be ashamed, although I hasten

27

to point out that only the word ashamed is in

And I see that Attorney Baird claims that at

19
1
2
3

quotation marks.
ATTY. MAURIELLO:

May I just ask for a

clarification on one point, Your Honor?

THE COURT:

Yes.

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

And I can address this to the

Court and counsel.

support the Second Amendment should be ashamed, is

that the only piece not - thats outside of a

transcript?

10
11
12
13
14

THE COURT:

Is this comment about those who

Well, Im going get to that.

Im

heading in the same direction.


ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Okay.

All right.

Thank you,

Your Honor.
THE COURT:

So there's that statement, the use

15

of the word ashamed, well say in the context of

16

the Second Amendment supporters and that also, I

17

guess, is tied to the is it Bogus or Bagus

18

(phonetic)?

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

Bogus.
The Bogus article about which there

21

was a colloquy on the record about your, Attorney

22

Baird, your knowledge of the article, I guess.

23

What else, is that it?

Okay.

So I guess what Mr.

24

Mauriello is asking and I share this, is that the

25

only sentence that Judge Mullarkey is alleged to have

26

made off-the-record and that is the sentence in which

27

he used word ashamed in the context of those that

20
1

supported the Second Amendment?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

Now, Page 4 of the Peterson

motion references certain additional comments

attributed to Judge Mullarkey that, I take it,

Attorney Baird, you felt were directed to you and

Judge Mullarkey's relationship with you, so they

dont bear on our current proceeding, correct?

ATTY. BAIRD:

10

THE COURT:

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

I took them as directed at me -

Right.
-- because I am an attorney that,

12

at least to Judge Mullarkey at the time, was known as

13

an attorney that represents firearms owners.

14

THE COURT:

Right.

But in this case that we

15

have now in Mr. Taupier's case, Judge Mullarkey was

16

not signing this risk warrant knowing that you were

17

his - you were Mr. Taupier's lawyer.

18

were not - there was no lawyer, I suspect, other

19

than Mister, I think, Jack O'Donnell may have been

20

representing Mr. Taupier at that time on the

21

voyeurism case.

22

Mullarkey - that that would be relevant in our

23

hearing here, his comments about you not - that you

24

were a graduate of Yale Law School or anything like

25

that?

26
27

In fact, you

So youre not claiming that Judge

ATTY. BAIRD:

Oh, not the Yale Law School, no.

I thought you were referring to the other comments in

21
1

the, in the Page 4 in the middle of the page.

THE COURT:

Well, one of those is a footnote to

Yale Law School and then the fact that youre going

to either be Annie Oakley or Bonnie Parker.

ATTY. BAIRD:

That I do claim.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

10

Second Amendment.

Im sorry?
That I do claim as relevant.

As relevant to what?

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

His bias as to firearms and the

And what about -For example, an attorney who does

13

many cases representing, lets say in the, you know,

14

African Americans and if they appear before a judge

15

and a judge said, oh, are going to be Martin Luther

16

King, Jr. today -

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

I understand.

-- or are you going to, you know,

19

Farrakhan, then I think that could be taken against

20

what the attorney does and not the attorney in

21

particular.

22

THE COURT:

Well, I think the example isnt

23

entirely accurate, were certainly not talking about

24

the same thing in the example that youve given.

25

so it would be your intention then to simply ask

26

Judge Mullarkey to confirm that these statements were

27

made?

But

22
1
2

ATTY. BAIRD:

and I said no, I do not.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

8
9
10

Its in a transcript.

Oh, so this These are.

The bulleted points -


Oh, yes.
Oh, theyre in the transcript that

you gave me?


ATTY. BAIRD:

The only content thats not in a

transcript is the ashamed content.

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

Well, I already answered the Court

Oh, I see.
Right.

I got it.

Okay.

So

So that answers your question,

Attorney Mauriello?

15

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

16

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

I misunderstood you.

So the only

17

sentence or statement is the statement in which His

18

Honor is alleged to have used the word ashamed in

19

the context of those who support the Second

20

Amendment?

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

22

THE COURT:

23

Right.
Okay.

you, sort of, understand where the claim --

24

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

27

So you, Attorney Mauriello,

I do, Your Honor.

Fine.

boxed in pretty nicely.

It seems to be, you know,


I would point out again that

23
1

to the extent Your Honor is going to accept the

proffer, the law very clear that we shouldnt

subpoena the judge --

THE COURT:

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Right.
-- unless we cant go anywhere

else and it seems like theres a number of witnesses

here.

those witnesses determines theres some kind of

question as to whether it was said then maybe in my

If, Your Honor, you know, after maybe hearing

10

view we can go there.

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Fine.
But as of right now it looks

13

like theres a lot of other sources for this

14

information.

15
16

THE COURT:

Im going to make the decision later

on the motion to quash.

17

ATTY. MAURIEELO:

18

THE COURT:

Thank you.

So youre welcome to stick around or

19

you can leave.

And I guess were going to hold off

20

also on the attorney generals request that we quash

21

the subpoena.

22

information may be relevant.

And well decide as we get going what

23

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

24

THE COURT:

All right.

Okay.

So, Attorney Mauriello, thank you.

25

And to the Assistant Attorney General, thank you, as

26

well.

27

go.

Youre welcome to stay or youre also free to

Do we have your contact information?

24
1
2

ATTY. MAURIELLO:
Your Honor.

THE COURT:

ATTY. PARILLE:

5
6
7
8
9
10

I believe it is in my motion,

THE COURT:

And the attorney general?


I'll be here.

Youll be here, good.

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

If Your Honor expects to get

to it today I have no problem staying.


THE COURT:

All right.

Well, thats up to you

as long as we can get you here if we need you.


Then with that done we should then begin to

11

address the issues concerning the warrant.

12

the troopers here that were involved in the risk

13

warrant?

14

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

So are

I did just give

15

to Attorney Baird the risk warrant dated August 29th,

16

2014, as well as a subsequent search and seizure

17

warrant dated 9/19/2014.

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. HANS:

20
21

All right.
I do have certified copies that Id

like to have identified as State's exhibits.


THE COURT:

Do you have any objection - the

22

copy of the risk warrant that youre giving the clerk

23

now, is that the risk warrant with the redaction?

24

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, sir.

25

THE COURT:

All right.

Attorney Baird, I take

26

it you have no objection if for purposes of the

27

hearing the risk warrant and the subsequent search

25
1

warrant, which we may or may not get to frankly, is

marked as a full exhibit?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

No objection.
Okay.

So those can be marked.

Lets mark the risk warrant as - for the purposes of

the motion - States Exhibit 1 or A.

THE CLERK:

1.

THE COURT:

And then States Exhibit 2 for

purposes of the motion will be the September 19th, I

10

think, search warrant.

11

the search warrant.

12
13
14

THE CLERK:

So call 1 the risk warrant, 2

And full exhibits, State's full

Exhibits 1 and 2, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Right.

All right.

15

And can we call the first trooper?

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. HANS:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

DeJesus.

Yes, Your Honor.


Who would you like to call first?
The State would call Trooper Daniel

26
1

D A N I E L

having been first duly sworn by the clerk, was examined and

testified under oath as follows:

D E J E S U S

THE CLERK:

Would you kindly state your name,

spell your name last name and provide your title and

business address for the record.

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

Daniel DeJesus, last name is

spelled D-E, capitol J-E-S-U-S.

Im a detective with

the Connecticut State Police Major Crime Squad and I

10

am housed out of Washington Street in Hartford, my

11

headquarters address is 1111 Country Club Road in

12

Middletown, Connecticut.

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. HANS:

15
16

Attorney Hans.
Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:


Q

Good morning, Trooper DeJesus.

Could you tell us how

17

long have you been working as a state trooper with the State

18

of Connecticut?

19

A little over seven years.

20

Okay.

21

And about how long have you been with the

Major Crime Squad?

22

A little over three years.

23

Okay.

Now, are you by any chance familiar with a

24

state police investigation involving a man named Edward

25

Taupier?

26

I am.

27

And do you see, by any chance, Mr. Taupier here in

27
1

the courtroom today?

I do.

Could you point him out, identify what hes wearing

4
5
6

for the record?


A

Hes to my right, navy blue sports coat, light

blue button down shirt, glasses.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

The record can reflect

the identification of the defendant.

9
10

Sure.

ATTY. HANS:
Q

Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, directing your attention to August 28th of last

11

year, 2014, did you in conjunction with other state troopers

12

receive any information from Hartford Judicial Marshals

13

pertaining to an e-mail that the defendant allegedly sent?

14

Yes, maam.

15

And could you tell the Court a little bit about what

16

you learned concerning the contents of that e-mail as it

17

relates to this case?

18

Yes, maam.

The e-mail, amongst other things,

19

consisted of comments made of harming a family court judge

20

by the name of Judge Bozzuto, there was references to -

21

there was a description of her residence and also how the

22

harm would be carried out, which was by shooting through a

23

residence window and how the author of this e-mail --

24
25

THE COURT:

All right.

Excuse me for just a

minute.

26

Why is any of this relevant?

27

ATTY. HANS:

The issue --

Your Honor, its background to show

28
1

why he subsequently -- threat to others was the basis

for the risk warrant and --

THE COURT:

But theres no claim by Attorney

Baird that the risk warrant is defective except in

its manner of - except as to its dating by the judge

and the execution of it.

that there wasn't probable cause for the risk

warrant, so this is unnecessary.

area that I wish to hear about and which Attorney

So theres no claim here

I think the only

10

Baird challenges are the events that took place

11

once -- and on the date they took place when Trooper

12

DeJesus, I suspect, brought an unsigned risk warrant

13

to Judge Mullarkey and when it happened and what he

14

did, what Detective DeJesus may have done after Judge

15

Mullarkey signed it.

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

Thank you, Your Honor

May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

18
19

Okay.

THE COURT:
Q

Yep, you may.

Thank you.

Trooper DeJesus, showing you States Exhibit 1, which

20

has been admitted as a full exhibit in this hearing.

21

you tell us, do you recognize that document, sir?

Can

22

I do.

23

Could you tell the Court what it is?

24

Its the risk warrant that I presented to Judge

25
26
27

Mullarkey.
Q

And was that Judge Edward Mullarkey in the Hartford

Superior Court?

29
1
2

I dont know his first name, but it is Judge

Mullarkey from G.A. 14, Hartford Superior, maam.

warrant?

I was.

And it pertained to the defendant, Mr. Edward

Taupier?

It did.

And did you sign -- who was the other co-affiant on

10

Okay.

And were you one of the affiants on that risk

the risk warrant?

11

My co-affiant was Trooper Katreyna, badge number 555.

12

Okay.

And the basis for the warrant was recent

13

threats or acts of violence by such person toward himself or

14

others, that was the grounds for the risk, search and

15

seizure warrant?

16

Yes, maam.

17

Okay.

18

And did you sign - you prepared the

affidavit, did you sign it on August 29th, 2014?

19

I did.

20

And did Trooper Katreyna, was he also present with

21

you?

22

He was.

23

And was that at Hartford Superior Court?

24

Yes, maam.

25

And it states on, if youll look at Page 4 of States

26
27

Exhibit 1, which is the judges signature of the affidavit.


THE COURT:

Hold on a second, please.

Page 4?

30
1

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

3
ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

I have a courtesy copy.


No.

Youre referring

Yes, sir.
Well, you called it -- ask the

Referring you to Page 4 of 6 of this risk warrant

affidavit -THE COURT:

13

Well, no.

This - Page 4 is not the

risk warrant affidavit.

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

Im sorry, Your Honor.

Its a

search and seizure warrant.

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. HANS:

18

THE COURT:

19

packet.

Page 4 is the search warrant.


Right.
Which is part of this multi-page

But Page 4 is the warrant.

20

ATTY. HANS:

Yes.

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

23

I have mine.

question again, please.

12

22

Excuse me.

to Page 4, is that right?

11

Just a moment, please.


(Pause)

10

Four of six, Your Honor.

And looking at that search and seizure warrant, so

you see the judges signature there?

24

I do.

25

Did Judge Mullarkey sign - it shows a date of August

26

28th, 2014 as opposed to August 29th, 2014.

27

the judge signed this warrant in your presence?

Do you know if

31
1

He did.

And do you know if the August 28th, 2014 date is a

scriveners or clerical error?

The 28th is an error.

Okay.

6
7
8
9

And what is the true date that Judge Mullarkey

signed this search and seizure warrant?


A

Same date I signed it, which is the 29th of August

2014.
Q

Now, Trooper DeJesus, the search and seizure warrant,

10

State's Exhibit 1, is that a common warrant that you have

11

old copies of that you sometimes cut and paste over in

12

preparing a new warrant?

13

Yes, maam.

14

Okay.

15

And was that done in State's Exhibit 1, Mr.

Taupiers warrant?

16

Yes.

17

Okay.

And just looking at Page 1 of the search and

18

seizure warrant, it indicates at the top residence of Edward

19

Taupier DOB 5/4/1965, at two-story single family colonial

20

style residence sided in gray vinyl siding, two-car garage

21

with white doors, the residence is located at 6 Douglas

22

Drive, Cromwell, Connecticut.

23

specific residence that you were seeking to search for

24

firearms on the date of August 29th, 2014?

Is that the area, is that the

25

Yes, maam.

26

Did you, in fact, execute, along with other troopers,

27

that risk warrant?

32
1

Yes, maam.

And did you go to 6 Douglas Drive, the residence of

Mr. Taupier in Cromwell, Connecticut to effectuate the

signed warrant?

Yes, maam.

And do you have an idea about time it was that day?

I dont recall.

8
9

I believe it was in the afternoon,

but I dont recall the exact time.


Q

Okay.

Before you executed this signed warrant did

10

you contact the defendant, Mr. Taupier, or a member of your

11

troop?

12

A member of my department, yes.

13

Okay.

14

And do you know if they informed him of the

basis for their entering into his home?

15

I believe so, maam.

16

And when got to the residence did you see certain

17

firearms, you as well as other troopers?

18

Other troopers did.

19

Okay.

20

I, I personally did not, other troopers in my

21
22
23

department did.
Q

Okay.

And going to Page 5 of State's Exhibit 1.

Could you take a look at that page for a moment, sir?

24

Yes, maam.

25

Okay.

26
27

2nd, 2014.
A

Now, looking at Page 5, its dated September

Can you tell the Court what Page 5 is?

Yes, maam.

Page 5 is the page that we complete, we

33
1

being the arresting agency or the agency that effects the

warrant, to list everything that we actually did seize and

we supplied this copy to the court.

Okay.

And its called a return form and inventory

property seized on search and seizure warrant, it enumerates

17 separate items that were seized at the 6 Douglas Drive,

Cromwell, Connecticut address of Edward Taupier, correct?

Yes, maam.

And it contains five or 15 firearms, 10,369 various

10
11

rounds of caliber ammunition -THE COURT:

Excuse me, Attorney Hans, Im trying

12

to make sure we keep our eye on the ball here.

13

Theres no claim by the defense that the items that

14

were seized were not covered by the warrant.

15

claim is that the warrant bears defects that render

16

the warrant invalid and therefore the property seized

17

should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.

18

The issue specifically, one of which youve covered

19

the other you have not, is that the dating of the

20

warrant, which Trooper DeJesus indicates was an error

21

by Judge Mullarkey invalidates the warrant and there

22

is a claim that the information on the warrant

23

itself, Page 4 of 6, has been changed and the

24

circumstances surrounding when it was changed, what

25

it originally said prior to being changed, all that

26

in some way undermines the validity of the warrant.

27

So thats what we need to get to not what was seized.

The

34
1

ATTY. HANS:

But, Your Honor, theres a three-

prong challenge to the firearms, ammunition in the

case.

three ways.

One, is that the risk warrant was flawed in

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

Right.
The second is that the judge was

not a neutral magistrate.

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.
And the third addresses the

10

constitutionality even if these were properly seized

11

and theres no infirmity in the warrant or the

12

seizure, whether or not these are relevant to the

13

case, and I think Im allowed to establish --

14

THE COURT:

15

cut you off.

16

establish what?

17

But -- excuse me, I didnt mean to

You feel you should be able to

ATTY. HANS:

That some of these firearms that

18

were seized are very similar to the .308 that was

19

described as shooting 245 yards away through a

20

double-paned window from an area of concealment into

21

Judge Bozzutos master bedroom window.

22

THE COURT:

That may or may not be, but it

23

needn't be the subject of the motion to suppress.

If

24

it goes to the relevance of the expert testimony that

25

you mentioned on Wednesday, I dont - Im assuming

26

that you have already made a proffer that you have an

27

expert that is prepared to say that one or more of

35
1

these firearms had the capacity of carrying out the

threat that you allege was communicated by the e-mail

in question.

At this juncture I don't think it's necessary

for Detective DeJesus to comment about that, its not

as if Detective DeJesus was authorized only to seize

such firearms as had the capability, this is a risk

warrant which authorizes the seizure of all firearms

found.

So it doesnt matter if theres 15 of them or

10

13 or them, it doesnt matter if none of them or five

11

of them are capable of carrying out the threat.

12

question is now, was the seizure undertaken in a

13

lawful manner or whether or not deficiencies in the

14

process should trigger the application of the

15

exclusionary rule.

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

The

Thank you, Your Honor.


So I dont - Im not going to allow

18

further questions about what these guns were like,

19

what their capabilities were at this time.

20
21

ATTY. HANS:
Q

Thank you.

Trooper DeJesus, going back to the first allegation

22

that the risk warrant is flawed regarding the wrong day.

23

You are certain in your mind that Judge Mullarkey signed

24

that document on August 29th, 2014, which is the same day

25

you and co-affiant, Trooper Katreyna, signed it and the same

26

day you executed it at the 6 Douglas Drive, Cromwell,

27

Connecticut address; is that correct?

36
1

I am confident.

Okay.

And lets get to the second alleged flaw in

the risk warrant.

seizure warrant, 4 of 6 of States Exhibit 1?

Yep.

Okay.

Can you look at Page 4 of the search and

Looking at that warrant, about midway down the

warrant it talks about in bold letters, any and all firearms

or ammunition located within the residence, seizure of

property.

A check of the CSP Special Licensing and Firearms

10

Unit Database show the following guns registered to.

11

see that line in the middle of Page 4?

Do you

12

I do.

13

And after the two do you see a very - a black Magic

14

Marker bar?

15

I do.

16

And was that on your original warrant, sir?

17

The black redaction that youre referencing was not

18
19
20

on the original warrant that I submitted to Judge Mullarkey.


Q

Okay.

So this black mark on State's Exhibit 1, Page

4, are you saying its a redaction?

21

I, I am.

22

Okay.

And do you recall what that redacted portion

23

was?

24

Yes.

It actually had a name, I believe the name was

25

David Raggazine (phonetic) or something to the like.

And I

26

had failed to actually insert David [sic] Taupiers name

27

when I initially presented this to Judge Mullarkey.

37
1

Okay.

So, Trooper, DeJesus, are you letting the

Court know that this was left over from an old cut and paste

computerized risk warrant?

Yes, maam.

Yes, maam.

It was a cut and paste

error that I did not notice the date that I presented this

to Judge Mullarkey, which was the 29th of August 14.

Okay.

And so Judge Mullarkey saw that different name

on August 29th, he read the entire warrant and he still

signed it?

10

11

I know he signed it on that date.


THE COURT:

Well, I mean, I dont think the

12

witness can indicate what Judge Mullarkey saw or

13

didnt see.

14

Judge Mullarkey signed it --

15
16
17

Judge Mullarkey - you can ask him if

ATTY. HANS:
Q

Let me rephrase, Your Honor.

Did you know whether or not - did you observe Judge

Mullarkey reviewing the warrant?

18

I did.

19

And that included Page 4?

20

Yes, maam.

21

And he subsequently signed the warrant despite the

22

fact that it had a different persons name other than Edward

23

Taupier listed on Page 4?

24

He did.

25

And does Mr. Taupier's name appear in bold face on

26
27

multiple occasions of the six-page warrant?


A

Yes, maam.

38
1

Does it also appear in the body of your affidavit,

sir?

It does.

And Im going to direct you to Page 3 of the arrest

warrant affidavit that you prepared.

you to Paragraph 7.

paragraph?

Could you take a moment and read that

(Pause)

Yes, maam.

10

Okay.

And could you tell the Court what essentially

11

that paragraph says?

12

want.

You can read it into the record if you

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

THE COURT:

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

18
19

And I want to direct

Well, I have it.


Okay.
I dont think I need him to read it.
Okay.
I can read it and it says what it

says.
Q

Okay.

And so doesnt that paragraph describe that

20

Mr. Edward Taupier possesses a valid Connecticut pistol

21

permit and has a total of 12 firearms registered to him,

22

including five handguns, seven long barrel guns as well as

23

42 high-capacity magazines?

24

At the time this was written, yes, maam.

25

Okay.

Now, when you go over to Page 4 of the actual

26

search and seizure warrant and it talks about a check of the

27

CSP Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, are those - is

39
1

that referring to the pistol permit that you alluded to in

Paragraph 7?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

So would that be cumulative information of Paragraph 7?

So the judge - well, strike that.

In other words, is was already in the body of your arrest

warrant affidavit that he possessed pistols and high-power

42 caliber magazine armaments, do you have - is this also

just an added portion of the search and seizure warrant that

10

further elucidates who the named person is?

11

Yes, maam.

12

And you were - that warrant allowed you to seize any

13

and all firearms and/or ammunition located within the

14

residence, that being the residence of 6 Douglas Drive in

15

Cromwell, Connecticut, correct?

16

Yes, maam.

17

So was it of any moment to you that maybe the guns --

18

if the guns had been registered to another person but they

19

were located in that residence did you understand that you

20

could seize them anyway?

21

I did.

22

Okay.

23

portion.

24

name; is that basically what you testified to today?

Now, the lets talk about that redacted

You submitted it to Judge Mullarkey with another

25

Yes, maam.

26

Okay.

27

Do you know if it had anything else besides

the gentlemans name?

If you can recall.

40
1

I dont, I don't recall.

Okay.

And you indicated that this was left over from

a previous cut and paste search and seizure warrant for risk

warrants?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

And at some point in time, Trooper DeJesus,

did you discover that that was an error?

I did.

Can you tell the Court a little bit about when you

10
11

found this scriveners error?


A

I can.

We presented, and by we I mean my co-affiant

12

Trooper Katrenya and I, presented the risk warrant, the

13

search and seizure warrant to Judge Mullarkey on the 29th.

14

On the morning of September 2nd, I believe, which was, I

15

believe, the next day I was actually at work, when preparing

16

my return I noticed the mistake, I noticed the, the name

17

of - that was previously written there and I presented this

18

to my sergeant and I explained the error and explained to

19

him that that was the only portion of the entire warrant

20

that had this error, and he determined at that point to make

21

the correction by placing that redaction bar there.

22

Okay.

And, sir, was that sergeant, Sergeant Medina?

23

Yes, maam.

24

Whats his full name?

25

Raphael Medina, III.

26

Okay.

27

Hes a sergeant within the State Police Major Crime

41
1
2
3

Squad, my unit.
Q

Okay.

And hes the supervisor of Major Crimes, hes

your direct supervisor?

He is, which is why I brought this to his attention.

Okay.

Now, fair to say just looking at the calendar

of last year, September 1st was Labor Day thats a state

holiday, so September 2nd would have been a Tuesday, thats

when you just first noticed this error in the return on the

warrant?

10

Yes, maam.

11

Okay.

And were you present when Sergeant Medina

12

redacted the mistaken name in the Edward Taupier, States

13

Exhibit 1 or did he do it at a later time?

14

I was present.

15

Okay.

16

If you know.

So you saw him put the black Magic Marker on

Page 4 and redact out the old wrong name?

17

Yes, maam.

18

And what did he - did you see him do anything else?

19

Yes.

20

What did he do?

21

He, he wrote in whats obviously handwritten on this

22

exhibit, which is Edward F. Taupier and included his date of

23

birth, as well as his initials and badge number.

24

Okay.

25

Sergeant Median, maam.

26

Sergeant Medina handwrote in Edward F. Taupier DOB

27

So Trooper Medina --

5/4/1965, he initialed it with his own initials and he also

42
1

placed his state trooper badge number, 177?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

And did Trooper - did Sergeant Medina have

you memorialize that change in a police report dated

September 10th, 2014?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

And so you prepared a report on September

10th, 2014 that indicates that the warrant had been redacted

and the correct name placed in it?

10
11
12
13

Yes, maam.

That was also on the advice of the

Hartford Superior Court States Attorney.


Q

Okay.

Did Sergeant Medina - were you present when

Sergeant Medina contacted anyone regarding his redaction?

14

I was.

15

And tell us what you know about that, Trooper

16

DeJesus.

17

Yes, maam.

My office is located just a block away

18

from Hartford Superior Court, so Sergeant Medina and myself

19

walked over and went to the office of States Attorney

20

Melchiorre, explained - at that point he explained to her

21

what he had done and he had explained to her what he had

22

done and I believe she told him along lines of, she

23

acknowledged that he did it, she didnt find an error and

24

she explained to us that she would notify Judge Mullarkey of

25

the same.

26
27

Okay.

And Ms. Vicki Melchiorre, the prosecutor that

he notified, was she the prosecutor who in fact had signed

43
1

the original August 29th, 2014 risk warrant?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

She had review it, yes, maam.

And do you know her to be the Supervisory

Assistant States Attorney for the Part A division in

Hartford?

I do.

Okay.

So she was alters, and was she alerted -- when

was she alerted after the redaction was made?

The same morning.

10

Okay.

11

The same morning.

12

And then you indicated Judge Mullarkey was also

13
14
15

informed?
A

Not by the sergeant and I, but we were told by

States Attorney Melchiorre that she would notify the judge.

16

Okay.

17

So we werent present when that happened, we were

18

just told that she would notify him by her, she told us

19

that.

20

Okay.

Now, so the morning of or some time on

21

September 2nd States Exhibit 1 was redacted, the new name

22

was put in by Sergeant Medina, the signing prosecutor was

23

alerted via telephone?

24

No.

No, maam.

We walked over to her office and sat

25

in her office and spoke to her and presented the actual

26

warrant, showed exactly what we had done.

27

Okay.

So you showed her State's Exhibit 1, the

44
1

actual warrant and you showed her the redaction?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

And then at some pointyou prepared a report

on September 10th, 2014, enumerated the changes that were

made?

6
7

Amongst other things, yes, maam, that, that was --

there was a paragraph specifically addressing that.

8
9
10

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.

this September 10, 2014 report be marked next as


States exhibit for identification.

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

THE CLERK:

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

19
20

Attorney Baird.

No objection.

Received as full, Your Honor?


It is, without objection as a full

exhibit.
Is that right, Attorney Baird, for purposes of
the hearing?
ATTY. BAIRD:

22

THE COURT:

Oh, no objection, no.


All right.

And this is a two-page

report.

24
25

So that can be marked

Full, as a full, Your Honor?

21

23

No objection.

3.

15

18

Your Honor, I just ask that

(Pause)
THE COURT:

Well, excuse me for just a moment.

26

Im getting two - I said its a two-page report, but

27

I have what says in the upper right-hand corner Pages

45
1

5 of 7 and 6 of 7?

ATTY. HANS:

The last two pages.

only to the redaction, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

They pertain

I can --

Well, is there a - do you know what

Im seeing, Attorney Baird?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Im seeing - no.
All right.

Well, show this to

Attorney Baird, please.

there was a report dated 9/10, this is what says is

10

Pages 5 and 6 of 7 and it references various dates,

11

so I want to make sure Attorney Baird knows what Im

12

looking at and then she can renew her objection or

13

make an objection or not.

14

is all that I need to see then Im fine with that

15

too.

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

THE COURT:

19

Because this is - I thought

If everybodys agreed this

Thank you, Your Honor.


I have it and I have no objection.
And this is Pages 5 and 6 of a

report.

20

ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, I do have a

21

courtesy copy for the Court of States Exhibit 3.

22

I may take that exhibit from -

23

(Pause)

24

ATTY. HANS:

25

May I approach the witness, Your

Honor?

26
27

If

THE COURT:
Q

Uh-huh.

Showing you States Exhibit 3 which has been admitted

46
1

as a full exhibit in this hearing, could you tell the Court

what State's Exhibit 3 is?

3
4
5

Yes, maam.

Its part of a supplemental report that

I completed.
Q

Okay.

And was that report completed by you, Trooper

DeJesus, at the bottom it says, report date September 10th,

2014; is that correct?

That is correct.

So you had the States Exhibit 1 redacted on 9/2 and

10

then within eight days you had prepared a full - or you

11

prepare a report regarding the redacted risk warrant as well

12

as other matters in the case?

13

Yes, maam.

14

And does State's Exhibit 3, looking at that document

15

if you take a few minutes to look over it, does it have a

16

paragraph disclosing the redacted risk search and seizure

17

warrant?

18

It does, at the bottom of Page 6 of 7.

19

Okay.

Bottom of Page 6 of 7 it indicates that the

20

original risk warrant dated August 29th has been redacted by

21

Sergeant Medina and that --

22

THE COURT:

23

what it says.

24
25

Well, its in evidence, so it says

ATTY. HANS:
Q

Okay.

And tell us, Trooper DeJesus, did anyone prompt you

26

to include that information regarding the redaction in a

27

police report?

47
1

Yes, maam.

Okay.

Yes.

Can you tell us a little bit about that?


That was also - this was at the suggestion of

States Attorney Melchiorre and this was suggested by her

the same day that she was and same time that she was

notified of the redaction when Sergeant Medina and I walked

over and met with her at her office.

8
9

Okay.

Now, the paragraph preceding States Exhibit 3

where it talks about on Tuesday September 9th, 2014 at

10

approximately 10:30 a.m. Trooper Fratellenico and I arrived

11

at the Middletown Superior Court and returned the search and

12

seizure risk warrant.

13

description of the redaction in this partial report,

14

correct?

15

It does.

16

Okay.

That immediately precedes the

Because the paragraph that talks about the

17

redaction doesn't say the date it occurred, but from the

18

preceding paragraph were you just basically doing in

19

sequential order what occurred don September 9th or before?

20

Strike that.

21

Please.

22

In your mind in preparing that disclosure was it

23

evident that the redaction had occurred after the warrant

24

had been executed on August 29th?

25

Yes.

26

And you indicated the information was inadvertently

27

Yes, it did.

printed on the warrant, wrong name and that Sergeant Medina

48
1

corrected the error and notified Assistant States Attorney

Melchiorre and you also indicated that the signing judge

was, to your knowledge, notified?

We were informed that he would be notified.

Okay.

By States Attorney Melchiorre.

Now, when you executed the search warrant, the risk

warrant on August 29th, do you know personally, from your

own personal experience and knowledge, whether or not a copy

10

of that risk warrant, which is States Exhibit 1 I think you

11

only need part of the warrant, was left at the residence of

12

Edward Taupier at 6 Douglas Drive in Cromwell, Connecticut?

13
14
15

I don't believe so, but I cant say of all certainty.

I just - I dont believe it was.


THE COURT:

Excuse me.

You do not believe a

16

copy of the warrant was provided to Mr. Taupier, do I

17

understand your testimony?

18

THE WITNESS:

19

THE COURT:

20

THE WITNESS:

21

THE COURT:

22

THE WITNESS:

23

THE COURT:

24

THE WITNESS:

Yes.

The date of its execution -

Correct.
-- I dont believe it was.

All right.
Its to my knowledge it wasn't.

All right.
However, I wasnt - I didnt

25

actually - I wasnt part of the team that seized the

26

firearms and therefore I wouldnt have been the

27

person responsible at that time to leave that page.

49
1

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Okay.

All right.

So -

So I dont believe it was.

Thank you.
To my knowledge it wasn't.

All right.

Next question.

But on the date were you aware of whether or

not Mr. Taupier had been told that the risk warrant was

signed by a judge and thats the reason the troopers were

there at his house?

10

Yes, maam, because I told him myself.

11

You told him yourself?

12

I did.

13

And you told him before - well, when you told him

14

the reason the troopers were there did you explain that you

15

were there to retrieve any firearms and ammunition?

16

I did.

17

And did you -- what else did you tell Mr. Taupier, if

18

you can recall, regarding the events that transpired in the

19

risk warrant on August 29th of 2014?

20

Yes, maam.

We were standing outside of his house,

21

he was at that point handcuffed in custody and I was

22

explaining to him that he was going to be taken into

23

custody, arrested.

24

signed risk warrant and he was - and I actually asked him

25

for the safety of my officers who were going to go in and

26

execute the search warrant, if he could help us out and

27

explain to us where the firearms were.

And I explained to him that we had the

And he actually was

50
1

very pleasant and he did, he shared with us where they were

and if I, if I recall correctly I believe he even gave us

the combination to a safe.

actually.

So he was very, very helpful

Okay.

And not resistant, if you will, not at all.

Okay.

And did he appear to understand you when you

said that you had a risk warrant affidavit and an actual

search and seizure warrant that you were going to execute

10
11

momentarily that day?


A

I have no reason to believe he didn't, he didnt

12

question me on it and based on his helping me I could only

13

assume he did understand.

14

Now lets back up a little bit.

You said that Mr.

15

Taupier had already been arrested, was that based on an

16

arrest warrant affidavit for threatening in the first degree

17

and harassment charges involving Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto?

18

Yes, maam.

19

And that had also been signed and that was executed

20

the same day?

21

Correct.

22

So that was executed shortly before your risk warrant

23

was executed, is that fair to say?

24

Yes, maam.

25

Okay.

So Mr. Taupier was told of the contents of the

26

risk warrant, he was told that the weapons would be seized.

27

Do you know if you ever told him if he was entitled to have

51
1

a hearing on return of the weapons, do you recall if you

ever gave him that information?

I, I don't recall.

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.

One moment, Your Honor.

(Pause)

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, if I could just have

one moment.

(Pause)

Trooper DeJesus, Im going to switch gears a little

10

bit.

11

shortly after Mr. Taupier was arrested for the threatening

12

case did you receive information regarding additional

13

firearms at the residence of a gentleman by the name of

14

Daniel Satula in Harwinton, Connecticut?

Shortly after you execute that risk warrant and

15

I did.

16

Can you tell us what information you received, sir?

17

Yes, maam.

I was notified by G.A. 14, specifically

18

Vicki Melchiorre, whos the states attorney, based on a

19

hearing she had at 14 with Mr. Taupier she came to

20

understand, and I dont know exactly how, but it was

21

disclosed that he had firearms that was housed in Satulas

22

residence.

23

Okay.

24

And so I was tasked with retrieving those firearms

25

and I was also told that they would be voluntarily

26

surrendered to me, so I had this knowledge prior to my going

27

to Satulas residence.

52
1

Okay, sir.

And was it your understanding that Daniel

Satula's firearms that belonged to Mr. Taupier were there

because of a family court order that he surrender firearms?

Yes, maam.

Okay.

And so you were given information that Mr.

Satula of Harwinton, Connecticut, Daniel Satula, was going

to voluntarily surrender certain firearms to you that

belonged to Edward Taupier, the defendant?

Yes.

In fact, I contacted him prior to my going so

10

when I did go he wasnt surprised, he was expecting my

11

arrival and, and then I retrieved firearms.

12

Okay.

And did you fill out a form that Mr. Satula

13

had voluntarily consented - Your Honor, I just have moment

14

here - did you fill out a form, Mr. DeJesus, called

15

surrendered firearms log sheet regarding the weapons that

16

were seized at Daniel Satulas residence in Harwinton?

17

I did.

18

Okay.

And do you recall the surrendered firearms log

19

sheet was - well, backtrack.

20

information from Vicki Melchiorre did you act on that

21

information that Mr. Satula had weapons that day or did you

22

wait until a later day?

23

That day.

24

Okay.

25
26
27

2014?
A

When you received the

And that date was on or about September 2nd of

If you can recall.


I, I dont recall.

my reports, rather.

Id have to refer to my notes or

53
1

Okay.

Did you prepare a surrender of inventory, a

voluntary surrender report regarding the seizure of any

firearms that were taken at the Satula residence?

I did.

ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, I apologize, I

didnt have an extra copy, but hes making it now.

just want to --

THE COURT:

Thats fine.

Do you have the

original or is it being copied now?

Or whatevers -

10

youre just waiting for your investigator to come

11

back?

12

ATTY. HANS:

Yes.

13

THE COURT:

Okay.

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

provide copies.

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. HANS:

18
19
20

Its just a two page, I didnt

Okay.

Here he is.

Thank you, Your Honor.

And I ask

that this be marked next as States exhibit.


THE COURT:

Have you seen this, Attorney Baird?

Take a look, see if you have any objection, please.

21

(Pause)

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

24

the same thing here?

25

No objection.
No objection.

And were looking at

This is 4, this is two pages.

(Pause)

26

THE CLERK:

Full exhibit?

27

THE COURT:

No objection, it can be marked as a

54
1

full exhibit.

ATTY. HANS:

copy.

4
5

And, Your Honor, this a courtesy

THE COURT:
Q

Thank you.

Showing you State's Exhibit 4, which has been entered

as a full exhibit, can you tell us what that document is,

Trooper DeJesus?

8
9

Yes, maam.

Its the form that I completed at the

Satula residence, inventorying the firearms we seized from

10

his residence, all that were surrendered from Satula that

11

belonged to Taupier, Edward Taupier.

12

Okay.

And that document, States Exhibit 4, theres

13

a box checked in the middle on Page 1, I have surrendered

14

the listed firearms and then its initialed by owner,

15

releaser DPS.

16

box and put his initials as the releaser of those firearms?

17

I was.

18

Okay.

Were you present when Mr. Satula checked that

And so also in the surrender codes I see a V

19

on Page 1, circle, its says, voluntary surrender, could you

20

explain to the Court what that means exactly?

21

Well, it means that under no order from the court, no

22

warrant, nothing, just he surrendered them on my request.

23

He surrendered them.

24

Okay.

And how did you know that they belonged to the

25

defendant, Edward Taupier or what information did you

26

have - did you have that led you to believe that they were

27

Mr. Taupiers firearms and not Mr. Daniel Satulas firearms?

55
1

Well, initially I was informed earlier in the day

prior to retrieving them, I was notified by States Attorney

Melchiorre, based on her own knowledge that Dan Satula

had -- was holding specifically four firearms that belonged

to Mr. Taupier and I was tasked with retrieving them.

Speaking to Satula when I did arrive at the residence those

initial four firearms he actually did not have them, didnt

know anything of them, but did provide me the ones that are

listed here, which are seven items, 1 through 5 listed on

10

Page 1; 6 and 7 listed on Page 2.

And Mr. Satula explained,

11

amongst other things, that these firearms belonged to Mr.

12

Taupier and surrendered them with, with no issue.

13

ATTY. HANS:

14

Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

15

THE COURT:

16

May I have State's 2?

Uh-huh.

Showing you States Exhibit 2, its been admitted as

17

a full exhibit as well in this hearing, Trooper DeJesus, can

18

you identify the document for the Court?

19

Yes, maam.

This is a search and, search and seizure

20

warrant that I submitted subsequent to the arrest and the

21

risk warrant, search and seizure warrant.

22
23

Okay.

So you had seized a number of firearms and

ammunition on August 29th under a risk warrant?

24

Correct.

25

And those were seized from 6 Douglas Drive in

26
27

Cromwell, the residence of Mr. Taupier?


A

Yes, maam.

56
1

Okay.

And then it looks like on September 19th,

2014, States Exhibit 2, you had submitted a separate

affidavit and application search and seizure warrant

regarding those same firearms, is that true?

Thats correct.

Okay.

And can you explain to the Court a little bit

about why you did that, what prompted you or who prompted

you?

Yes, maam.

These were the initial, the initial

10

seizure of the firearms from Mr. Taupiers residence were

11

under the risk warrant, which we seized on the guise -

12

well, we seized on the authority that we believed him being

13

in possession of them posed a risk to himself and others.

14

Subsequent to that we submitted or I submitted the actual

15

search and seizure warrant to take them in as evidence from

16

the risk warrant.

17

And lets talk about that for a little bit, for a

18

minute.

19

the first degree charges and the harassment charge relating

20

to complainant, Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto?

You seized them as evidence of the threatening in

21

Yes, maam.

22

And the first degree threatening charge has an

23

element that the defendant represented by his words or

24

conduct that he had firearms?

25

Correct.

26

Okay.

27

So essentially what happened is you prepared

an affidavit that these guns existed, they were seized at

57
1

Mr. Taupiers residence and then you presented it to a judge

here in Middletown; is that correct?

Thats correct.

Okay.

Yes, maam.

And signed by you on September 19th, 2014, you had

And that was Judge Diana, correct?

your same co-affiant, Trooper Andrew Katrenya, number 555,

he was the same person that was your co-affiant on the risk

warrant?

10

Yes, maam.

11

Familiar with the case?

12

Yes, maam.

13

And fair to say that you were, pretty much, the lead

14
15

investigator in this case?


A

I was.

I, I - as we handle our investigations

16

within the Major Crimes theres always a designated lead

17

investigator.

18

Okay.

I was the lead in this case, yes, maam.


Now, the purpose of State's Exhibit 2 was to

19

have them seized as evidence in the criminal case involving

20

the threatening in the first degree charge?

21

Yes, maam.

22

And it lists the Department of Emergency Services and

23

Public Protection, DESPP, on Page 1, Division of State

24

Police, and thats States Exhibit 2, 1111 Country Club

25

Road, Middletown, Connecticut as the place to be searched.

26

Is that the main headquarters of the Connecticut State

27

Troopers agency?

58
1

Yes, maam, thats our headquarters.

Okay.

Now, Im just wondering, were the -- when you

seized all those firearms back on August 29th, 2104, where

did they go?

Immediately they were transported as we handle all of

our evidence to my troop, which is Troop H in Hartford and

they were housed and secured in our evidence room after

being inventoried.

9
10

Okay.

So Troop H is located in Hartford,

Connecticut, thats your home troop?

11

Yes, maam.

12

And the guns were secured there.

13

At some point were

the guns transferred anywhere?

14

They were, they were.

15

And can you tell us about that?

16

Sure.

I, I dont recall exactly what date without

17

looking at my reports, but they were transported to our

18

vault, they were just so many firearms for that reason

19

because we do, we do house and secure evidence that are

20

firearms at Troop H, but there were just so many in this

21

case that they were transported to our vault in Meriden,

22

Connecticut, located in Meriden.

23

Okay.

24

It is.

25

Okay.

Thats a Connecticut State Trooper vault?

So let me get this clear, you seized the

26

firearms and the ammunition really under two separate

27

affidavits and warrants?

59
1

One from - yes.

One from Taupier residence and then

in essence one from - for ourselves.

firearms in our possession when I submitted the actual

search and seizure warrant that youre referring to, Exhibit

No. 2.

Okay.

We already had those

Is there any reason why you didn't do the --

State's Exhibit 2, the affidavit and the application for

search and seizure warrant without the risk warrant or put

it another way, can you explain why you did it two different

10
11

ways?
A

Well, I initially did the risk warrant, it just

12

seemed like the logical thing to do considering the

13

investigation, the way my investigation was going with the

14

threatening and the actual charges I was going with and

15

investigating I believe the risk warrant, it just made sense

16

to go that way.

17

Okay.

18

I - and then certainly didnt get any direction from

19
20

any other authority telling me to go any other avenue.


Q

Okay.

And, Trooper DeJesus, in fact both State's 1,

21

which is the risk warrant affidavit and States 2 were

22

signed by a Superior Court judge in the State of

23

Connecticut, correct?

24

Yes, maam.

25

Probable cause was found?

26

Yes, maam.

27

ATTY. HANS:

No further questions, Your Honor.

60
1

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Excuse me for just a minute.

(Pause)

THE COURT:

5
6
7

Go ahead.

I just wanted to check

with the court reporter.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:
Q

Trooper DeJesus, am I correct that on August 29th of

2014 you and Trooper Katrenya traveled from Troop H over to

101 Lafayette Street for the purpose of having an arrest

10

warrant and a firearm seizure warrant signed?

11

Thats correct.

12

Did you make any phone calls on that date of August

13

29th, 2014 prior to making the trip from Troop H over to 101

14

Lafayette Street?

15

If youre asking me --

16

THE COURT:

Well, to whom?

17

THE WITNESS:

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

THE COURT:

-- if I called the court?


Objection, Your Honor, vague.
I mean, is this regarding - you

20

mean did they alert anybody they were coming type of

21

question?

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

24

Yes.

All right.

Did you make any phone calls to anyone at 101

25

Lafayette Street prior to traveling from Troop H to 10

26

Lafayette Street on August 29th, 2014 with regard to the

27

arrest warrant and the firearm seizure warrant that you had

61
1
2

for Edward Taupier?


A

I don't recall if I made any phone calls that day

regarding the - what youre asking regarding the warrants.

I dont recall, maam.

Do you know if anyone at 101 Lafayette Street in the

states attorneys office was expecting you on August 29th,

2014 to arrive with the two warrants?

8
9

Again, I don't recall and Im basing that on in the

past with other cases to include this case, there have been

10

eventual (as heard) cases where Ive called and Ive

11

scheduled or notified them that Id be coming with

12

something, whatever that may be pertaining to the case, but

13

I dont recall the - I mean Ive done it both ways where

14

Ive called and tried to schedule and there are other times

15

when Ive just walked over and presented to the courts what

16

I had, so on this particular day I dont recall.

17

When you arrived at 101 Lafayette Street on August

18

29th, 2014 with the two warrants, with the one arrest

19

warrant for Edward Taupier and the firearm seizure warrant,

20

who did you speak to first?

21

I don't recall who I spoke to first.

I know I

22

eventually spoke to - well, I cant say eventually.

I know

23

I did speak to States Attorney Melchiorre, whether I spoke

24

to her first or not I dont recall.

25

hard to remember that particular, I know I ordinarily would

26

go and speak to the investigators first, thats what I

27

ordinarily do, whether that happened in this particular

Again, and its, its

62
1

morning or not I dont recall.

Do you recall speaking to Assistant States Attorney

Melchiorre about the two warrants in question on August

29th, 2014?

Yes.

Do you recall speaking to anyone else by name with

regard to the two warrants in question on August 29th, 2014?

Judge Mullarkey.

Now, you had indicated earlier on direct testimony

10

that Assistant States Attorney Melchiorre signed the

11

firearm seizure warrant, correct?

12
13

She - I believe she reviewed it, whether she

actually signed it.

14

She did not sign it, correct?

15

I, I dont - Id have to check, it --

16

Its Exhibit 1.

17

Yes, maam.

18

(Pause)

19

Unless its under one of the stickers that was placed

20

by this court here regarding this case, I don't see her

21

signature anywhere.

22

it.

23
24
25
26
27

I can, I can testify that she reviewed

And you testified on direct that Assistant States

Attorney Melchiorre did sign the arrest warrant, correct?


A

Maam, I -THE COURT:

This is the arrest, am I right; now

you asked about the arrest warrant?

63
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
So I guess the question Attorney

Baird is now asking you, Detective, relates not to -

the arrest isnt even before the detective, right;

that wasnt marked?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

It was not marked.


All right.

So this is - now were

talking about the arrest warrant as opposed to the

risk warrant.

10

THE WITNESS:

11

THE COURT:

Yes, sir.
The question is, did she, Attorney

12

Melchiorre, sign that?

13

THE WITNESS:

14

THE COURT:

Did she sign it?


The arrest warrant, and if you dont

15

know because its not in front of you then just

16

indicate that.

17

THE WITNESS:

18
19
20
21

I don't know because its not in

front of me.
Q

Okay.

So youre not aware of any prosecutor sitting

there right now who signed the arrest warrant?


A

I can tell you that I did everything with this case

22

regarding the warrants through Vicki Melchiorre, so I can

23

say with all certainty that Vicki Melchiorre, States

24

Attorney Melchiorre, was the only one who reviewed any of

25

the warrants that I submitted.

26
27

Did you draft a search and seizure warrant for

firearms, not a firearm search and seizure warrant, but a

64
1

search and seizure warrant similar to the one you drafted as

Exhibit 2; do you have Exhibit 2 in front of you?

I do, maam.

Okay.

Did you sign a search and seizure warrant

similar to the one in Exhibit 2 on August 29th, 2014?

On August 29th, 2014 I submitted the risk warrant.

You submitted a risk warrant, correct?

Yes, maam.

You submitted an arrest warrant, correct?

10

Correct.

11

You did not submit a search and seizure warrant

12

similar to the one in Exhibit 2, correct?

13

On August 29th, thats correct.

14

Correct, okay.

You testified that when you arrived

15

at Mr. Taupier's house on August 29th of 2014 he was placed

16

under arrest; is that correct?

17

Yes, maam.

18

And my recall of your direct testimony is that he was

19

placed under arrest prior to searching for the firearms,

20

correct?

21

Yes, maam.

22

So its my understanding that you obtained the

23

firearms on August 29th, 2014 pursuant to the firearm

24

seizure order, correct?

25

Correct.

26

Okay.

27

So youre not claiming there were any exigent

circumstances for seizing the firearms, correct?

65
1

No, there was not.

Because Mr. Taupier was under arrest, correct?

He was under arrest.

And you had complete custody and control of him when

he was under arrest, correct?

We did.

So that he could not have gotten away from you and

taken any of his firearms, correct?

At that moment, no, maam.

10

Okay.

And its my understanding as well, Trooper

11

DeJesus, that there were photographs taken of the firearms

12

and of the house at the time?

13

There were.

14

Okay.

15
16

And those firearms were taken pursuant to the

risk warrant, the firearm seizure warrant?


A

Well, we seized them and then, as is our normal

17

protocol, we photograph and inventory the firearms, yes,

18

maam.

19

understand your question, if youre asking me if the risk

20

warrant commanded me, if you will, to take photos, no, but

21

that is our normal course of business.

22

evidence, whatever it may be, in this case firearms and we

23

photograph them, thats how we -- thats our normal protocol

24

of investigations.

25
26
27

If youre asking me, I just want to make sure I

We seize the

So you did not take the photographs pursuant to the

arrest warrant, am I correct?


A

Pursuant to the arrest warrant, photographs of his

66
1

firearms, is that your question, maam?

Yes.

We took photos of the firearms based on them being

4
5
6
7

seized as evidence and we photograph evidence.


Q

So its your testimony that on August 29th, 2014 the

firearms were seized as evidence?


A

No.

Well, we seized them under the authority of the

risk warrant, but because we seized them, and I guess Im

using the term evidence because theyre housed in our

10

evidence locker at Troop H, so naturally I just -- I got to

11

that term because theyre housed and theyre secured in our

12

evidence locker.

13

inventory them, part of our protocol is to take photos.

14

So because they were stored and we

But, Trooper DeJesus, am I correct, do you agree that

15

those firearms on August 29th, 2014 were not seized as

16

evidence?

17

At that -- on that date they were seized under the

18

authority of the risk warrant and they were subsequently

19

submitted as evidence for this case based on the search and

20

seizure warrant that I submitted and ultimately got signed

21

on the 19th.

22

the risk warrant.

23

So they were seized at -- under, again, under

And by the way, just going to Exhibit 2, the search

24

and seizure warrant that was signed on September 19th, 2014,

25

do you see that in front of you?

26

Yes, maam.

27

Exhibit 2.

67
1

Yes, maam.

That seizure warrant only lists the firearms that

were seized on August 29th from Mr. Taupier's residence,

correct?

If I could just have a moment to compareYes, maam.

This, this search and seizure warrant that I submitted on

the 19th that was subsequently signed only lists -- so if

Im hearing right, yes, it only lists the firearms seized

under the risk warrant that we executed at Mr. Taupiers

10
11

residence on the 29th of August 2014, correct.


Q

So that the search and seizure warrant that is

12

Exhibit 2 in front of you does not list the firearms from

13

Exhibit 4 that were seized or surrendered by Mr. Satula on

14

September 2nd, correct?

15
16
17

Youre correct when you say that its not listed on

the Exhibit 2 search and seizure warrant.


Q

Okay.

Youre correct.

Do you know if you ever submitted a search and

18

seizure warrant to seize the seven firearms listed on

19

Exhibit 4 to seize them as evidence?

20
21
22

I don't believe I did.

Id have to reference my

reports, but I dont believe I did, no.


Q

No, maam.

Did the photographs that were taken on September --

23

excuse me, August 29th, 2014 at Mr. Taupiers residence have

24

anything to do with his arrest or the arrest warrant that

25

was served on him?

26
27

ATTY. HANS:

Excuse me.

that question again?

Your Honor, can I hear

I didnt quite understand it.

68
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

reporter read it back.

3
4

THE COURT:

Well, we could have the court

All right.

Madam Court Reporter,

could you read back Attorney Bairds last question.

(Playback by Court Monitor)

THE COURT:

Attorney Hans, did you --

ATTY. HANS:

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

COURT MONITOR:

Okay.

10

THE COURT:

11

THE WITNESS:

12
13
14

once again?

Okay.
Your Honor, can I just hear that

All right.

Could you play it back

for the witness, please.


(Playback by Court Monitor)
ATTY. HANS:

17

relevant.

18

relevance.

19

All set.

Im sorry.

THE COURT:

15
16

Dana, youre all set?

Your Honor, Im going to object as

I dont think the photographs have any

THE COURT:

Whats the significance of the

20

photographs, Attorney Baird, as it relates to this

21

hearing that were having now?

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

Were moving to suppress all

23

evidence or testimony related to the seizure of the

24

firearms and ammunition on August 29th, 2014.

25

because of insufficiencies in the risk warrant, if in

26

fact the photographs were taken pursuant to the

27

authority given under the risk warrant then that

If,

69
1

would include the evidence that were seeking to

suppress.

THE COURT:

But did you -- first of all, and I

may have missed it, has there been testimony these

photographs were taken at the house, is that what

youre saying?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

I could ask him, but, yes.


Could you ask.

Im unclear as to

when these photographs of the weapons were taken.

10

dont know if they were taken as they were located or

11

what.

12
13
14

Could you inquire, please.

Trooper DeJesus, the photographs that were taken of

the firearms, when were they taken?


A

Id have to refer to my report for that, that

15

certainly was a task that fell on a different detective who

16

I know provided me a supplemental report as well as the

17

photographs.

18

So Id have to actually refer to that.

Is there a report that would refresh your

19

recollection about when the photographs were taken and where

20

they were taken?

21

Yeah, there should be a report submitted by a

22

detective thats included in my full report that should

23

document exactly where, when and the particulars to include

24

the description of the actual photograph itself of the

25

firearms.

26
27

THE COURT:

Can counsel agree on when, I mean,

is it a matter in dispute?

Have both sides seen the

70
1

pictures?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

Are the pictures taken in the

home or are they taken at -- I mean, if we can agree

on these things we dont need testimony.

tell where they were --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

10
11

At the home.

Okay.

THE COURT:

Can you

Yes.

Fair enough.

Yes.
Do you dispute that they were taken

at the house?

12

ATTY. HANS:

13

THE COURT:

No, sir.
Fine.

All right.

So then Attorney

14

Bairds issue is that if, in fact, the warrant was

15

defective she doesn't want you introducing the

16

pictures of the guns any more than she wants you to

17

introduce the guns themselves because if the

18

warrants no good then they couldnt go in the house

19

to photograph the guns any more than they could go in

20

and seize them.

21

claiming?

Is that pretty much what youre

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

So your question of the

24

detective is whether or not the pictures that were

25

taken were taken pursuant to the arrest warrant?

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

Right.
So thats the question, not the risk

71
1

warrant.

Were the pictures taken pursuant to the

arrest warrant or the risk warrant?

THE WITNESS:

Maam, the risk warrant.

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

What was the answer?

risk warrant --

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

Risk warrant.
-- which authorized our seizure of

the firearms.

10

THE COURT:

11

THE WITNESS:

12

Thank you.
So they were taken as part of

inventory.

13

THE COURT:

14

Attorney Baird?

Does that satisfy your inquiry,

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

17

They were taken pursuant to the

Yes.

Thank you.

Turing our attention to Exhibit 1, the risk warrant

18

in front of you, Trooper.

And again I will direct your

19

attention to Page 4 of 6, the actual warrant.

20

Yes, maam.

21

Where is the copy of the warrant that was signed by

22
23

Judge Mullarkey on August 29th, 2014?


ATTY. HANS:

Objection and vague, Your Honor.

24

believe he indicated that there original was

25

redacted, I dont know if there is a copy.

26
27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I dont think the prosecutor

should testify for the trooper, he can answer for

72
1

himself.

THE COURT:

answered, if you can.

copy of the warrant you showed Judge Mullarkey?

Ill allow the question to be

THE WITNESS:

The question is, where is the

The copy as it was originally

presented to Judge Mullarkey -- well, it doesn't

exist as it originally was presented to Judge

Mullarkey because the -- as I explained earlier

the -- after he did sign we redacted, and by we I

10

mean Sergeant Medina specifically, redacted the name

11

that was on it.

12

a -- there is a copy at all that -- I dont know if

13

Im answering your question.

14

a copy that exists at all that has what was

15

originally presented to Judge Mullarkey because

16

thats what was actually redacted.

17

So I don't, I dont believe theres

I dont believe theres

When you were at 101 Lafayette Street on August 29th,

18

2014 subsequent to your meeting with Attorney Melchiorre, am

19

I correct that you would have then gone to see Judge

20

Mullarkey for a signature on the firearms seizure warrant?

21

Again, youre -- can you say that again?

Im sorry.

22

You went to 101 Lafayette Street --

23

Yes, maam.

24

-- on August 29th, 2014 and met with Attorney

25

Melchiorre with regard to Mr. Taupier and a firearms seizure

26

warrant, correct?

27

Correct.

73
1
2

After you met with Attorney Melchiorre did you then

go to see Judge Mullarkey?

Soon after, yes, maam.

And was the purpose of that meeting to present the

warrant and your affidavit to Judge Mullarkey for his

consideration?

Yes, maam.

And did Judge Mullarkey in fact sign the warrant on

that day?

10

Yes, maam.

11

Who was present -- am I correct that this meeting

12

with Judge Mullarkey would have taken place in his chambers?

13

In his office, yes, maam.

14

In his office.

15

Yes, maam.

16

Who else was present when you met with Judge

17
18
19

Mullarkey on August 29th, 2014 in his office?


A

Strictly myself and my co-affiant and Judge

Mullarkey.

20

And co-affiant was Trooper Katrenya, correct?

21

Yes, maam.

22

After Judge Mullarkey signed the risk warrant Ill

23

call it, which is Exhibit 1, on August 29th, 2014 who took

24

the actual warrant in hand, was it you or Trooper Katrenya?

25

I, I dont recall.

26

And do you know if the warrant was transported back

27

by either you or Trooper Katrenya back to Troop H?

74
1

Yes, yes.

Where would have it been kept once it was transported

3
4
5
6
7

back to Troop H?
A

I would have had it in the file with my -- whatever I

had to date regarding this investigation.


Q

And that document would have had your original

signature?

Yes, maam.

Trooper Katrenyas original signature?

10

Yes, maam.

11

And Judge Mullarkeys original signature, correct?

12

Yes, maam.

13

And when you went to Mr. Taupiers house on August

14

29th, 2014 to serve that risk warrant, am I correct that you

15

took that warrant that had your original signature, correct?

16

Yes, yes.

17

That had Trooper Katrenyas original signature,

18

correct?

19

Yes, maam.

20

And that had Judge Mullarkeys original signature,

21

correct?

22

Same form, yes, maam.

23

And you carried that firearm seizure warrant to Mr.

24

Taupier's house?

25

No, maam.

26

No.

27

I did not carry it to his house.

I had it on me and

75
1
2
3

I had multiple copies burned of it.


Q

Okay.

Yeah.

And where are those multiple copies that --

what do you mean by burned, what does burned mean?

Photocopied.

Okay.

I dont recall where I photocopied them.

Well, did you photocopy them at Troop H?

I would have ordinarily have photocopied them there,

And where did you photocopy those?

but I, I dont want to go on record and say for sure I did

10

it there.

11

also, theres a copy machine upon my exit.

12

also done it there.

13

photocopied it, but I certainly photocopied it.

14
15

I could have done it on the way out of G.A. 14


So I could have

I dont recall exactly where I

Well, are you saying that you may have copied them at

G.A. 14 because youve done that on previous occasions?

16

Ive used their copier before, yes, maam.

17

And for what purpose would you have copied a firearms

18
19

seizure warrant on the photocopy machine at G.A. 14?


A

Well, I would have -- if -- why would I have done it

20

at 14?

Well, out of the convenience, its a photocopier,

21

really for no other reason except that its, its there.

22

And why would you need copies?

23

Well, I would have burned the copy because I knew

24

that I was going to present the copy of the risk warrant to

25

my major crime van personnel, if you will.

26

step further and the reason why I would have done that is

27

because they are the ones who actually went through the

And Ill go one

76
1

residence to take photos, to seize the firearms.

part of that process of going into the residence to seize

the firearms, so thats why a copy would have been burned, a

copy would have been made.

5
6

I wasnt

And so lets get this -- you could have made copies

at G.A. 14, correct?

Its possible.

You could have made it at Troop H?

Thats possible.

10

Is there any other place that possibly you could have

11

made copies of the warrant that was signed by Judge

12

Mullarkey?

13

No, maam.

14

And is it your testimony that when certain officers

15

went to Mr. Taupier's house on August 29th, 2014 they had a

16

copy or copies that you had burned of the original risk

17

warrant signed by Judge Mullarkey?

18

To my knowledge they did and I -- and Ill go one

19

step further.

20

can only say that I would have given a copy to someone in,

21

again, my major crime van personnel because I knew that they

22

were in fact the detectives tasked with going inside the

23

residence.

24

I dont recall exactly who I gave a copy to I

And on September 2nd as you sat at Troop H and were

25

preparing the return for the firearm seizure warrant, am I

26

correct that thats when you noticed on Page 4 that there

27

was a name and information unrelated to Mr. Taupier?

77
1

Yes, maam.

You did say September 2nd?

Yes.

Yes, maam.

And as you sat there at Troop H on September 2nd and

made that observation were you looking at the warrant that

had the original signature of Judge Mullarkey on it?

I was looking at the original, yes, maam.

And its that warrant, the original one, that you

9
10
11
12
13

were looking at on September 2nd that you observed Sergeant


Medina make a redaction to, correct?
A

Yes, maam, after I brought it to his attention.

Yes, maam.
Q

What happened to the copies of the warrant that you

14

burned at G.A. 14 or Troop H on August 29th, 2014 and sent

15

out to the field with the individuals going to Mr. Taupiers

16

house?

17

I don't know.

I cant -- I dont, I dont know what

18

happened to that copy that was presented to someone in the

19

major crime van personal.

20
21
22

And now you say copy, do you know if it was just one

copy or more than one copy?


A

I dont know.

I, I cant see a reason why I would

23

have burned -- photocopied more than one.

I dont see a

24

reason and I -- just based on my past acts I wouldnt make

25

more than one copy.

26

copy.

27

would have made just one copy for them.

I know they wouldnt need more than one

So I -- based on my past I can only assume that I

78
1

And who was it, who are the possible individuals that

you would have given this one copy to of the firearms

seizure warrant on August 29th, 2014?

Even that I cant answer only because I, I don't

recall if it was -- because it could have been someone where

it was, say, a fellow detective handed to a van detective

for me or if I handed it to a sergeant who handed it, so I,

I dont know the chain of hands that it went from one to the

other.

10

After you observed on September 2nd the information

11

on Page 4 of 6 that was not related to Mr. Taupiers case

12

did you attempt to find this one copy that you had made of

13

the original warrant to see where it was located?

14

I did not.

15

Do you know where its located now?

16

I do not.

17

Do you if its on file with Troop H?

18

I do not, no.

19

Do you think one of the individuals who went to Mr.

20

Taupier's house on August 29th, 2014 would have destroyed

21

that document?

22

I cant speak on -- I dont know.

23

Okay.

24

Actually Im going to, if I can, answer a previous

25

question, sir?

Can I just

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

I don't mind if he clarifies.

Okay.

Go ahead.

79
1

THE WITNESS:

Just to answer, if a copy is

housed at Troop H my answer to that would be no

because I am the one who submits the reports that go

into the file.

been what I submitted to Troop H, to the -- where we

file our reports.

that youre referring to that I made prior to the

redaction, like I said, thats not at Troop H

because -- and I know this because Im the one who

10
11

So I can say that this would have

So I, I can say that no, that copy

submits the reports to go into the files.


Q

And its your testimony that you have no idea what

12

happened to that report that went out to the field that day

13

to Mr. Taupiers house on August 29th, 2014?

14

I mean the firearms seizure warrant.

And by report

15

Yes, thats right.

16

Somebody could have ripped it up for all you know?

17

I, I dont know what happened to it.

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

THE COURT:

I dont know, thats right.

Objection, calls for speculation.


Well, I guess weve covered the area

20

that whatever copy or copies may have been made of

21

the original warrant, whether or not they exist, this

22

witness doesnt have any testimony to offer us

23

regarding it and he cant produce a copy.

24

When you -- I believe on direct you testified that

25

you were present when Sergeant Medina made the redaction on

26

Page 4 of Exhibit 1?

27

Four of Exhibit 1.

Yes, maam.

80
1
2

Do you know who entered the handwriting on Page 4 of

Exhibit 1 that states, Edward F. Taupier date of birth?

I do.

And how do you know that?

Because it was done in my presence by Sergeant

Medina.

And this was done at Troop H, correct?

Correct.

Was it done in an office?

10

I believe it was done in his office, yeah.

In fact,

11

yes, it was done in his office because I presented this to

12

him in his office.

13
14

And other than you and Sergeant Medina were any

others present?

15

I dont believe so.

16

Did Sergeant Medina ask you at any time to initial

17

the change?

18

Not at all, no, maam.

19

Am I correct that you testified that you then called

20

up Attorney Melchiorre to inform her of the change?

21

No.

22

You went over and spoke to her?

23

We did.

24

And did you go over on September 2nd of 2014 to speak

25

No, maam, youre incorrect.

We did.

to Attorney Melchiorre?

26

Yes, maam.

27

And who went over?

81
1

It would be myself and Sergeant Medina.

Did Trooper Katrenya go with you?

I dont believe so.

And were you present when Attorney Melchiorre was

informed of the change that had been made on Page 4 of

Exhibit 1?

I was.

And Sergeant Medina was present?

He was.

10

Was anyone else present?

11

No, maam, just the three of us.

12

Did you provide Attorney Melchiorre with a copy of

13

Exhibit 1 that has the redaction on Page 4?

14

I don't recall.

15

Did you notify Judge Mullarkey of the change to Page

16

4 of Exhibit 1?

17

Myself directly, no, maam.

18

Okay.

19

Were you present when Judge Mullarkey was

informed of the change to Exhibit 1?

20

No, ma'am.

21

In Exhibit 3, which is your report, if I could direct

22

your attention if you have it still in front of you.

23

Yes, maam.

24

Direct your attention to the last line on Page 6,

25

which indicates that Judge Mullarkey and Attorney Melchiorre

26

were notified of the redaction, do you see that place?

27

I do see it.

82
1
2
3
4
5

What information did you have at that time that Judge

Mullarkey had been notified of the redaction?


A

I didnt.

I had, I had the word from States

Attorney Melchiorre that she would notify him.


Q

Okay.

So when meet with Attorney Melchiorre on

September 2nd, 2014 she indicated to you and Sergeant Medina

during that meeting that she would notify Judge Mullarkey?

That she would, so --

That she would?

10

Thats right.

11

And subsequently did you follow up and ask Attorney

12

Melchiorre if she, in fact, did notify Judge Mullarkey?

13

I did not.

14

So sitting there today you cannot testify that Judge

15
16
17
18

Mullarkey was ever notified, correct?


A

Youre correct.

I can testify that I didn't notify

Judge Mullarkey.
Q

When you went -- if I could direct your attention now

19

to Exhibit 2, the September 19th, 2014 search and seizure

20

warrant.

21

Yes, maam.

22

(Pause)

23

To Paragraph 10 of your affidavit.

24

Yes, maam.

25

Am I correct that you presented this warrant here at

26
27

the courthouse in Middletown to a Superior Court judge?


A

Yes, maam.

83
1

And the name of that judge is Judge Diana?

Yes, maam.

When you presented this search warrant dated

September 19th, 2014 to Judge Diana did you inform Judge

Diana that the search warrant referenced in Paragraph 10,

the firearms search warrant referenced in Paragraph 10,

signed by a Superior Court judge had been redacted and

changed after the judge had signed it?

I did not.

10

Directing your attention to Exhibit 1 again, the

11

firearms seizure warrant --

12

Yes, maam.

13

-- on Page 5, which is the return of the warrant.

14

Yes, maam.

15

Thats your signature in the return block?

16

That is.

17

And you gave a copy of the warrant on the return to

18

the Hartford State's Attorney's Office; is that correct?

19

Thats correct.

20

Do you recall any particular person who you made the

21
22

return to at the States Attorneys Office in Hartford?


A

No, maam.

I submitted it to the clerk or the intake

23

person who I would always submit a return to, so I

24

wouldnt -- to answer your question I wouldnt had this or

25

the return, this return or any other -- this document

26

directly to a states attorney.

27

Okay.

Well, Ill clarify.

84
1

Sure.

It says, I gave a copy of such warrant to the

Hartford States Attorneys Office, the person named therein

on September 2nd, 2014, do you see that?

I do.

And my question was, who was the individual or person

at the Hartford States Attorneys Office who you gave a

copy of the warrant to?

Id have to refer to my reports because I know there

10

is a signed transmittal of the intake person who received

11

it.

12

Okay.

And then after you gave a copy of it to the

13

Hartford States Attorneys Office seven days later on

14

September 9th, 2014 you filed it in Middletown, correct?

15

And if you want to refer to --

16

Yeah.

17

-- Exhibit 3, Page 6 of 7 of your narrative, the next

18

to last paragraph.

19

Yes, maam.

20

Is that correct, you returned it to the clerk's

21

office in Middletown on September 9th?

22

Correct.

23

And seven days prior you had provided a copy to the

24
25
26
27

state's attorneys office, correct?


A

Id have to look at the transmittal, but I -- based

on what Im reading here it says I did.


Q

Well, that is your signature, correct, Trooper

85
1

DeJesus?

3
4

Yes, I -- yeah, Im saying that it does say the 2nd

on the return.
Q

And when it says, I gave a copy of the warrant to the

Hartford States Attorneys Office there person named

therein, what person are you referring to when you put your

signature there?

8
9
10

The -- I think thats the same question you asked me

earlier, the intake person.


transmittal.

Id have to refer to the

Am I understanding you right?

11

All right.

12

Yes, maam.

13

-- about three quarters of the way down when it says,

14

So on Page 5 of 6 --

the person named therein --

15

Yes, maam.

16

-- you -- your testimony is the person named therein

17
18
19
20
21
22

is someone in the state's attorney's office?


A

Someone within G.A. 14 that would handle the intake

of all returns.
Q

Okay.

Its not Edward Taupier that you would give a

copy of the warrant to?


A

Its not him who I gave a copy to.

23

you right?

24

this to Edward Taupier --

Am I answering

Am I -- youre asking me if I gave a copy of

25

Uh-huh.

26

-- my answer to that is, no, I did not give a copy of

27

this to Edward Taupier.

I gave a copy of this to G.A. 14

86
1

and to further answer who I gave a copy to, again, I gave it

to the intake person, I dont know the exact title, could be

a clerk, but whoever I would normally submit my transmittals

to.

5
6

And have you made returns on firearm seizure warrants

previous to the warrant thats in Exhibit 1 in this case?

Yes, maam.

And when make the returns do you make the return

9
10

always on a prosecutor's office or a state -A

No.

No, maam.

A copy of this would have been

11

returned to the person who the warrant was executed on.

12

I would typically have someones name there.

13
14

So

And in this case you didn't do what was typical and

put somebodys name there, correct?

15

Right.

Thats correct.

16

Is there a reason for that?

17

Yes.

I was uncertain, again, as I said earlier I

18

cant testify with all certainty, but I wasnt so sure if a

19

copy had been given to Mr. Taupier.

20

going to be presented at 14, so I submitted a copy to 14 in

21

the hopes that he can get a -- that he would get a copy when

22

he was presented at court.

23

explanation as to why I put Hartford States Attorney there

24

because I knew he would be presented at G.A. 14 subsequent

25

to his arrest.

26
27

I knew that he was

So thats, so thats my

So if you were more confident or if you were sure

that Mr. Taupier had received a copy on August 29th then you

87
1

would have said, I gave a copy --

Yes, maam.

-- to Edward Taupier --

Yes, maam.

-- the person named therein on August 29th, correct?

Thats correct.

You testified that the firearms that were seized on

August 29th, 2014 were originally stored at Troop H in

Hartford, Correct?

10

Yes, maam.

11

And then at some point they moved to the vault in

12

In the evidence locker room.

Meriden, correct?

13

Thats correct.

14

Did you execute the search and seizure warrant on

15

September 19th, 2019 [sic] for the 17 items named in Exhibit

16

2?

17

I did.

18

And you gave a copy of that warrant, am I correct, to

19

Yes, maam.

Trooper DeCruz, the evidence officer at Troop H?

20

Correct.

21

On September 19th, 2014 were the 17 items named in

22

the search and seizure warrant in Exhibit 2 under the

23

control of Trooper First Class DeCruz, the evidence officer,

24

at Troop H?

25

Id have to look at my reports.

I know at, at one

26

point they were transferred to the vault in Meriden to be

27

secured there, on what day exactly I dont know.

I, I --

88
1

what I will say is that I put his name on this because he is

the evidence officer of Troop H and, and I know he had the

files on hand that authorized a seizure of the firearms.

if this was a copy this was provided to him at that point.

So I cant really say exactly -- well, I, I could, just not

right here, right now, say when they were transported to the

vault, Id have to look at the reports.

8
9
10
11

So they could have been transported to the vault

before or after September 19th, 2014, is that your


testimony?
A

My testimonys that it could have been done before or

12

after.

13

controlled vault, so its secured by Connecticut State

14

Police personnel.

15

So

Its -- I will say on record that the vault is a CSP

And did you add that testimony to support a theory

16

that it really doesnt matter what address or person is

17

named in the search and seizure warrant to seize these

18

firearms as long as the person or address was a Connecticut

19

State Police officer person?

20

No.

21

Okay.

22

I did not add that, that language, if you will.


Directing your attention to Exhibit 2 again,

that search and seizure warrant --

23

Yes, maam.

24

-- am I correct that on Page 6 of 7 you asked or

25

applied for a warrant to seize the 17 items, including

26

firearms and ammunition, from the address of 1111 Country

27

Club Road in Middletown?

89
1

Thats correct.

The items listed; the firearms and ammunition, the 17

items, were not located at 1111 Country Club Road in

Middletown on September 19th, 2014, am I correct?

That's correct.

They never, they never would have

been secured there.

administrative offices, thats to include our legal

department.

Thats, thats our headquarters and

And you never went to 1111 Country Club Road in

10

Middletown to execute the search warrant that was signed on

11

September 19th, 2014, correct?

12

No, maam.

They werent housed there.

The address

13

was placed there by, by me strictly because that is our

14

headquarters and that is where our legal department is

15

housed.

16

Okay.

So you put the address on the warrant, Exhibit

17

2, of 1111 Country Club Road in Middletown because that is

18

where the Legal Affairs Unit of the Connecticut State Police

19

is located?

20
21
22
23

I did because thats where legal is located and

thats where our headquarters is, thats correct.


Q

Okay.

Was the Legal Affairs Unit involved at all in

the execution of the search warrant thats Exhibit 2?

24

No, maam.

25

Did you inform Judge Diana on September 19th, 2014

26

that the location as represented in the warrant of 1111

27

Country Club Road, Middletown, Connecticut was not the

90
1

actual location of the firearms?

I did not.

Did you inform Judge Diana on September 19th, 2014

that the reason for the address in the search and seizure

warrant of 1111 Country Club Road in Middletown was because

thats where the Legal Affairs Unit of the state police is

located?

No, I did not.

9
10

(Pause)
Q

And am I to understand from your testimony that this

11

is a practice of the state police to put 1111 Country Club

12

Road in Middletown, Connecticut on search and seizure

13

warrants for firearms even though the firearms are not

14

located there?

15

No, I cant testify to that.

I can testify that I

16

did it on this day because that was -- that is where our

17

headquarters is located, where our legal department is

18

located and thats why I did it, because I, I did it because

19

we had these firearms in our possession.

20

somewhere else outside of CSP then I would have cited that

21

address, but because we had possession they were within our

22

building thats, thats why, because its headquarters and

23

its legal.

Had it been

24

Okay.

So Im to understand --

25

But I can't say thats the common practice or thats

26

what everyone does.

I, I dont know.

27

the other troops or units do.

Im not privy to what

I can tell you thats why I

91
1

did it this time.

(Pause)

ATTY. BAIRD:

I dont have any further

questions.

THE COURT:

Any further questions of Trooper DeJesus?

ATTY. HANS:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:

Thank you.

Just a follow up.

You werent attempting in any way to mislead Judge

10

Diana when you listed the headquarters of the entire

11

Connecticut State Troopers Agency on the States Exhibit 2

12

warrant?

13

14
15

I did not, it was not my intention to mislead anyone.

No, maam.
Q

Okay.

And in fact, the headquarters can be the

16

address of -- when you placed that on State's Exhibit 2 you

17

indicated that if it had been another agency you would have

18

put that address on?

19

Yes, maam.

20

Okay.

So for purposes of clarity you just put the

21

headquarters and legal department address so that the judge

22

would know that they were in the possession of the

23

Connecticut State Police?

24
25
26
27

Yes, maam.

Along with the body of the warrant, yes,

maam.
Q

Any moment of you -- did it matter to you or did you

think it was crucial to say that they were housed at Troop H

92
1
2

or Meriden, was that in any way factored into your decision?


A

No.

Until right now it really didnt cross my mind

as to why I would -- why I wouldnt use our headquarters

address.

5
6

(Pause)
Q

You have no reason to disbelieve Attorney Melchiorre,

Prosecutor Melchiorre when she said she was going to notify

Judge Edward Mullarkey of the redaction in States Exhibit

1, do you have any reason to disbelieve her?

10

No, maam.

11

Okay.

12
13
14

And so you put that in your report that Judge

Mullarkey would have been notified?


A

Yes.

notify him.

15

When I left her office she told me she would


I had no reason to not believe her.
ATTY. HANS:

16

One moment.
(Pause)

17

ATTY. HANS:

18

I have no further questions, Your

Honor.

19

THE COURT:

20

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:

21

In that area.

You were just asked whether you had any reason to

22

believe that Judge Mullarkey would not have been notified,

23

correct?

24

25
26
27

I was asked if I had any reason to believe that Vicki

Melchiorre would not notify Judge Mullarkey, correct.


Q

Right.

And then you were asked, and is that why you

put it in your report, correct?

93
1

Thats exactly why I put it in my report, yes.

Okay.

Do you have your report in front of you,

Exhibit 3?

I have Exhibit 3, correct.

Okay.

And the last line on Page 6 of Exhibit 3 says

that Judge Mullarkey and Assistant States Attorney

Melchiorre were notified, correct?

It does say that.

ATTY. BAIRD:

10
11
12

THE COURT:

No further questions.

Anything else?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION ATTY. HANS:


Q

Trooper DeJesus, your belief is you didnt check it

13

out personally, but your belief is that they were both

14

notified?

15

I had no reason to believe that States Attorney

16

Melchiorre would not follow through in what she told me,

17

which was that shed notify Judge Mullarkey.

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

THE COURT:

Thats enough.

20

All right.

Thank you, very much.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

No further questions.

You can step

down.
THE WITNESS:

What do I do with this; do I leave

this here?
THE COURT:
there.

You should probably leave the things

Well let the marshal collect those.

Are there other witnesses that either party is


planning to call in conjunction with this hearing one

94
1

or the other of you?

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, can we approach sidebar

for one moment?

THE COURT:

Attorney Baird, if youll come up, please.

(Discussion at sidebar)

7
8

Uh-huh.

THE COURT:
10-minute recess.

All right.

Were going to have a

Thank you.

(Recess at 12:03.

Resume at 12:16.)

10

THE COURT:

11

And, Attorney Hans, did you have enough time to

12

make a phone call to see what you could --

13
14

Thank you.

ATTY. HANS:

Yep.

much.

15

THE COURT:

16

you successful or no?

17

ATTY. HANS:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Thank you, Your Honor, very

Well, just for our scheduling, were

A machine, answering machine, they

didnt get back to me on an appointment, but -THE COURT:


All right.

But somebodys monitoring it?

Okay.

So who is the next witness?

ATTY. HANS:

Sergeant Medina, Connecticut State

Trooper.
THE COURT:
Medina.

All right.

Lets have Sergeant

95
1

R A P H A E L

having been first duly sworn by the clerk, was examined and

testified under oath as follows:

M E D I N A

THE CLERK:

If you would kindly state your name,

spell your name last name and provide your title and

business address for the record.

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

Raphael Medina, M-E-D-I-N-A,

sergeant with the Connecticut State Police, work

address 1111 Country Club Road in Middletown,

10

Connecticut.

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. HANS:

13
14
15

All right.
Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:


Q

Good afternoon, Trooper Medina.

Could you tell us

how long have you been a Connecticut State Trooper?

16

Over 18 years now.

17

Okay.

18

Attorney Hans.

And before being a Connecticut State Trooper

did you have any other law enforcement experience?

19

I did.

20

Could you tell us a little bit about that?

21

I was a police officer with Southern Connecticut

22

State University; I was hired with them in June of 96 then

23

hired with the state police in February of 1997.

24

Okay.

Im going to direct your attention to an

25

incident report and a risk warrant affidavit involving a

26

gentleman by the name of Edward Taupier, it was a risk

27

warrant dated August 29th, 2014.

Are you familiar with that

96
1
2

document?
A

Yes.

ATTY. HANS:

Madam Clerk, can I have State's

Exhibit 1, please?

And may I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT:

You may.

And, Sergeant Medina, showing you State's Exhibit 1,

its been admitted as a full exhibit in this hearing.

you recognize that document, sir?

Do

10

Yes, I do.

11

And could you tell us how you recognize it?

12

This was the risk warrant that was executed on the

13
14
15

Taupier residence on the 29th.


Q

Okay.

And did you ever see the defendant, Edward

Taupier, who is the purported subject of the risk warrant?

16

Did I ever see him?

17

Yes.

18

No, I did not.

19

Now --

20

Let me back up, Im sorry.

21

Visually law eyes on him?

On the 29th I did during

the arrest, but not prior to the risk warrant.

22

Okay.

So prior to the risk you had never seen Mr.

23

Taupier?

24

Thats correct.

25

Were you part of the team that executed the risk

26

warrant at 6 Douglas Drive in Cromwell, Connecticut, the

27

residence purported to be of Mr. Taupier?

97
1

No, I was not.

Okay.

The States Exhibit 1, is that prepared in the

normal course of your business as a Connecticut State

Trooper, a risk warrant?

It is.

And affidavit accompanying that, is that also

prepared in the normal course of your business?

Yes, it is.

And are you familiar with the two affiants of States

10

Exhibit 1, that would be Trooper Daniel DeJesus and Andrew

11

Katrenya?

12

Yes.

13

Okay.

14

DeJesus?

15

Yes.

16

Do you also supervise Andrew Katrenya?

17

During his period, yes, maam.

18

Okay.

And do you directly supervise Trooper Daniel

And shortly after the warrant was executed, I

19

think on or about September 2nd of 2014, did you have

20

contact with Trooper Danny DeJesus regarding States Exhibit

21

1?

22
23

September 2nd was the first time I actually viewed

the risk warrant.

24

Okay.

25

When he brought it to my attention the, the

26

scrivener, the scriveners error located on the back page,

27

Page 4, I believe it is, of 6 where he came into my office

98
1

and identified -- when he was doing the return he came into

my office and related that he identified an error contained

within the risk warrant and brought it to my attention, this

is the first time I actually viewed the risk warrant for the

residence.

Oh, okay, sir.

And so you say on September 2nd

Trooper Danny DeJesus, one of the co-affiants, came to your

office, physically came into your office, and explained that

there was a scriveners error on Page 4 of States 1?

10

Yes, maam.

11

Okay.

12
13

And when he showed you the error what, if

anything, did you do?


A

Identified the error.

I agreed that it was a

14

scriveners error.

15

name that was there originally and then entered in the

16

correct name of Mr. Taupier with date of birth and initialed

17

it as well.

18
19

Okay.

I took a black Sharpie, redacting the

And did you do that in Trooper Danny DeJesuss

presence?

20

Yes, maam.

21

And, Sergeant Medina, do you recall if anybody else

22

was present when you made this redaction?

23

No, maam.

24

And by any chance, I know its been a long time its

25

now March 9th, 2015 so this is many months past, do you

26

recall what was the redacted, the original print, that

27

appeared on States Exhibit 1?

99
1

No, I do not.

Okay.

Do you know if it was a name, a number, do you

know -- any recollection of the content of what you had

redacted in States Exhibit 1, Page 4?

5
6
7

Looking at this it should have been a name with a

date of birth.
Q

Okay.

And were you aware that the topic, the person

that was the subject or the target of the risk warrant was

Edward Taupier DOB May 4th, 1965?

10

Yes, maam.

11

And he was -- the residence to be searched for

12

firearms was located at 6 Douglas Drive, Cromwell,

13

Connecticut?

14

Yes, maam.

15

And that is prominently displayed in a number of

16

places in States Exhibit 1, as well as Mr. Taupiers name

17

is displayed in the body of the affidavit, correct?

18

Yes, maam.

19

Okay.

So when Trooper DeJesus brought to your

20

attention the wrong name you took measures to redact that

21

and put the correct name?

22

Yes, maam.

23

Okay.

And did you sign -- well, what did you

24

correct, once you redacted out what you purported to be was

25

another name, correct?

26

Yes, maam.

27

And did he explain to you that it was from an old,

100
1
2

leftover computerized cut and paste risk warrant?


A

I believe that Detective Katrenya e-mailed him a copy

of a risk warrant that he had on the 28th.

wasnt present during the 28th when his complaint came in

and he utilized that risk warrant to do this one.

Okay.

Like I said, I

So your understanding this was a cut and paste

document, you have risk warrants on your computer all the

time, you change information, you change the defendants

name, you change the residence?

10

Yes, maam.

11

And did you perceive that Page 4 of 6 having the

12

wrong -- what did you think the right name should be on Page

13

4 of 6 of States Exhibit 1?

14

Edward F. Taupier, 5/4/1965.

15

Okay.

16

Yes, maam.

17

And so you redacted the old name out with the black

18

And thats because he was the subject?

Magic Marker?

19

Correct.

20

And you hand wrote in with a black pen, Edward F.

21

Taupier DOB 5/4/1996 [sic], you signed Sergeant Medina -- or

22

sergeant with your initials and then you included a number

23

177.

24

Yes, maam.

25

Okay.

Is number 177 your badge number, Sergeant?

So was it your understanding that you had made

26

that redaction, sir, after the warrant had been signed by

27

both the judge and the prosecutor, and as well, after it had

101
1

been executed?

Yes, maam.

And can you give us the reason why you made that

clerical correction; can you just explain to the Court why

you did that?

It was a scriveners error.

I felt that -- it was

brought to my attention as an error and as a supervisor I

had to take corrective measures to address the issue at

which time I did.

But upon -- as soon as I did it I

10

realized, well, its not a simply report that we normally

11

have thats notarized, we cross it out and put our initials

12

on it and we forward it.

13

warrant.

14

did by making this correction and notified the court.

15
16
17
18
19
20

So then I immediately understood my error that I

Okay.

And when you say you notified the court, do

you know in particular whom you notified?


A

States Attorney Vicki Melchiorre.

Okay.

And Vicki Melchiorre, is she the Supervisory

States Attorney in Hartford on the Part A?


A

Yes, maam.

22

Okay.

24
25
26
27

I think -- I

believe its how you pronounce her name.

21

23

In this case it was a risk

And how did you -- do you recall how you

notified Attorney Melchiorre?


A

Myself and Detective DeJesus physically walked across

the street to G.A. 14 and met with her in her office.


Q

Okay.

Now, Sergeant Medina, you said you felt that

you made an error, can you explain to the Court a little

102
1
2

bit -- well, strike that.


In regular reports that you prepare in the normal course

of your business do you make corrections to a date or an

address or a wrong name all the time?

Yes, maam.

And thats just the matter of course to -- for

accuracy purposes?

Correct, maam.

Okay.

So what do you think made this a little bit

10

different than regular police reports that you redact or

11

correct or revise routinely?

12

It was a warrant signed under oath that was signed by

13

a judge, it should have been -- it should not have been

14

altered.

15

16

Okay.

Did you gain anything from altering this

document?

17

No, I did not.

18

Did you in any way attempt to deceive the court in

19

altering this document?

20

No, I did not.

21

And did you notify Attorney Melchiorre for the

22

purposes of documenting that a redaction had been made?

23

Yes, maam.

24

And did you also or was there an instruction to

25

actually prepare a report regarding this redaction?

26

Yes, maam.

27

Okay.

And to your knowledge that was done by Trooper

103
1

Danny DeJesus on or about September 10th, 2014, shortly

after the redaction was made?

Yes, maam.

ATTY. HANS:

5
6

One moment, Your Honor.


(Pause)

Do you know if when you spoke with Attorney

Melchiorre whether or not there were any indications that

the judge who had signed that original warrant with the

wrong name on it on Page 4, do you know if any

10

representations were made that the judge would in fact be

11

notified of this redaction?

12

Yes, maam.

13

Okay.

14

When I met with the states attorney and actually

Can you tell us a little bit about that?

15

showed her what I did she advised me that to ensure that we

16

did document this in a report and she was going to advise

17

Judge Mullarkey of what I did, so.

18

Okay.

Do you have any -- you don't have personal

19

knowledge that she actually advised him of the redaction or

20

do you?

21

She called me shortly thereafter to advise me that

22

she did speak with Judge Mullarkey concerning the incident

23

and he -- since it was done already and I initialed it he

24

was fine with what was documented in the -- on the search

25

warrant and in a report.

26
27

Okay.

So you think later that same day or shortly --

when did you say -- so you got a telephone call from Vicki

104
1

Melchiorre saying, hey, Ive talked to Judge Mullarkey, he

understands, hes okay with it?

It was towards the end of the week because Judge

Mullarkey was on an evidence hearing and thats when it was,

towards the end of the week or the beginning of the

following week and thats why the return was done, I

believe, on the 9th.

Okay.

The actual transmittal.

10

That was a holiday weekend, right, September 1st was

11

Labor Day, September 2nd was a Tuesday?

12

Yes, maam.

13

And so youre saying within a week or so Vicki

14

Melchiorre confirmed to you that Judge Mullarkey, the

15

signing judge, had been notified of the alteration?

16

Correct.

17
18

(Pause)
Q

Do you know if -- when you say that you redacted

19

States Exhibit 1, do you know if it was the one that had

20

the original signatures of both the judge and the affiants

21

on it?

22

Yes.

23

Okay.

So that was the original, and so the original

24

was redacted.

25

copies floating around?

26
27

And do you know if there were any other

Not that Im aware of, maam.


ATTY. HANS:

Okay.

No further questions, Your

105
1
2
3

Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:
Q

On August 20 -- excuse me.

On September 2nd of 2014

you made the redaction on Exhibit 1, the firearms seizure

warrant, in your office; is that correct?

Yes, maam.

Was anyone else present?

Detective DeJesus was present.

So it was just you and Detective DeJesus?

10

That I can recall, yes, maam.

11

And this matter of the firearms seizure warrant and

12

the name and information on Page 4 that did not relate to

13

Mr. Taupier was this brought to your attention for the first

14

time on September 2nd, 2014?

15

Yes, maam.

16

When it was brought to your attention, what time

17

period elapsed between it being brought to your attention

18

and you doing the actual redaction and insertion of Mr.

19

Taupiers name in to Exhibit 1, the risk warrant?

20

It was immediately.

21

Did you call a supervisor?

22

No, maam.

23

Did you seek guidance from anyone higher up in the

24

chain of command?

25

No, maam.

26

Did you discuss it with anyone other than Trooper

27

DeJesus, that time period between him first bringing it to

106
1

your attention and you doing the redaction?

No, maam.

Did you ask Trooper DeJesus if he had a copy already

of the original that you were about to redact?

No, maam.

Did you make any effort to make a copy to memorialize

what the original warrant looked like that the judge had

signed?

No, maam.

10

Is there a reason why next to your redaction and next

11

to your name and your badge number you didn't initial it --

12

I mean, excuse me -- you didnt date it?

13

Because the return that Detective DeJesus was filling

14

out was dated 9/2, which is captured on Page 5, thats why I

15

knew it was the date.

16

But Im going to direct your attention to Page 4 of

17

Exhibit 1, the risk warrant.

Next to the part you redacted

18

and the handwritten entry, is there a reason why you didnt

19

put a date of that redaction and the handwritten entry on

20

that page?

21

No, maam.

22

Do you agree that a date would have, if you had put a

23

date that it would have said September 2nd, 2014?

24

Yes, maam.

Yes.

25

And that if you had put a date of September 2nd, 2014

26

it would have alerted those looking at the warrant that the

27

change was made after its issuance and execution?

107
1

ATTY. HANS:

I have an objection, Your Honor.

It calls for speculation, not sure if

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

I claim it, Your Honor.


Well, Im going to sustain the

objection.

dated and we would have seen what the date was.

If had been dated it would have been

Are you aware of any officer who went to Mr.

Taupier's home on August 29th to execute the risk warrant

and the arrest warrant who had a copy of the risk warrant in

10

his or her hand?

11

I am unaware.

12

Is it fair to say that you were not involved in Mr.

13

Taupier's case prior to September 2nd, 2014?

14

15

29th.

16

17

I do not know.

I was -- I became involved in Mr. Taupiers on August

Did you go to the home, Mr. Taupiers home, as part

of that involvement?

18

Yes, maam.

19

And do you know if a copy of the risk warrant was

20

provided to Mr. Taupier at his home on August 29th, 2014?

21

I do not know.

22

And when you went to the home, Mr. Taupiers home, on

23

August 29th, 2014, did you read the risk warrant, had you

24

read it or did you read it at that time?

25

I was not the sergeant who initially reviewed the

26

risk warrant.

I reviewed Mr. Taupiers arrest warrant.

27

was part of the staging area and group to conduct the arrest

108
1

of Mr. Taupier as one -- when the search warrants and arrest

warrants were signed at the court, I was at the staging

area.

risk warrant, that would be Sergeant Seth Mancini.

The supervisor who reviewed the search warrant and

And do you know if Sergeant Seth Mancini was on duty

on September 2nd, 2014 when Trooper DeJesus brought the

firearms safety warrant to you with the issue on Page 4

of 6?

I do not know.

10

Did you discuss at all with Trooper DeJesus going to

11

see Sergeant Mancini instead of you, since Sergeant Mancini

12

had been the one who originally was involved in the firearm

13

seizure warrant?

14

No, maam.

15

Do you know why, do you know why Trooper DeJesus

16

would have come to you and not Sergeant Mancini even though

17

Sergeant Mancini had been the one involved in reviewing his

18

firearm seizure warrant draft?

19

20

Troop H.

21

22

Because I was his immediate supervisor on duty at

Okay.

And Sergeant Mancini is not Trooper DeJesuss

immediate supervisor?

23

No, maam.

24

And youve already testified that you don't know if

25

Sergeant Mancini was on duty that day, of September 2nd,

26

2014 when Trooper DeJesus brought the warrant you, correct?

27

Correct.

109
1

If you could look at Exhibit 2, its probably not in

front of you.

of you?

Is it; do you have just one exhibit in front

I just have one, maam.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

witness get it?

Okay.

Do you want me to see that the


This is the regular search warrant?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

All right.

10
11
12
13

If I could have Exhibit 2.

(Pause)
Q

Sergeant Medina, were you involved at all in

reviewing Exhibit 2, that search and seizure warrant?


ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, Im going to object as

14

beyond the scope of direct.

15

risk warrant that he redacted, the subsequent States

16

2 is dated November -- or September 19th, and I dont

17

think he has any -- its beyond the scope unless

18

you --

19
20
21
22
23
24

THE COURT:
scope.

Well, it is technically beyond the

What is that -- I mean, hes here now.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Your Honor, I did subpoena him.

We could break and I could call him back.


THE COURT:

Yeah.

I know.

And thats what

Im --

25

ATTY. HANS:

26

THE COURT:

27

We were focusing on the

Oh, you want to go with that, sure.


But you have an area you want to

question him on regarding the warrant on the 19th?

110
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

Well, it is technically

outside the scope, but hes here, this is a hearing,

so go right ahead.

Were you involved at all in reviewing the September

19th, 2014 search and seizure warrant thats been entered as

Exhibit 2?

Yes, maam.

And did you review it as the direct supervisor of

10

Trooper DeJesus?

11

Yes, maam.

12

And thats why he brought it to you for review?

13

Yes, maam.

14

When you reviewed that search and seizure warrant was

15

there any discussion with Trooper DeJesus about including in

16

that affidavit for the search warrant information that the

17

previous risk warrant had been redacted or changed after its

18

issuance and execution?

19

No, ma'am.

20

I just want to be clear, you never appeared in front

21

of Judge Mullarkey with regard to the changes you made on

22

Page 4 of 6 of Exhibit 1, correct?

23

Thats correct.

24

You never swore to it under oath in front of Judge

25

Mullarkey?

26

No, ma'am.

27

And you spoke to Attorney Melchiorre in following up

111
1

about her representation that she had informed Judge

Mullarkey about the changes to the risk warrant?

Yes, maam.

And did you -- was it in person or a phone call when

you spoke to Attorney Melchiorre?

The follow up was a phone call, maam.

And did you call her or did she call you?

I called her.

And am I correct that on direct you testified that

10

she informed you that she had told Judge Mullarkey?

11

Thats correct.

12

Did she tell you when?

13

No, maam.

14

And did she include in that conversation something I

15

thought I heard on direct about it had already been done?

16

Well, thats what I said.

17

Oh.

18

I already did this, this is what occurred when I

19
20

I told her.

You told her?

presented to her.
Q

Okay.

And what else were you informed about, were

21

you informed at all about Judge Mullarkey's reaction when

22

Attorney Melchiorre told him about this?

23

No, maam, I wasnt privy to their conversation.

24

Okay.

25

And so all you know is that he was informed,

is that your testimony?

26

Yes, maam.

27

You refer to the name and information on Page 4 of

112
1

the risk warrant, Exhibit 1, is a scriveners error; is that

correct?

Correct, maam.

As a scriveners error did you believe that the

warrant needed to be changed to correct that scriveners

error?

I believe the warrant should have been changed to

reflect the totality of the warrant, the name of Ed Taupier

that, thats mentioned throughout.

10
11
12

Did you ever consider just leaving the warrant as it

was, as it had been signed and executed?


A

Within the moment I treated it as a report and I

13

corrected it as a report.

Realizing it was a search warrant

14

I realized my error and I brought it to the attention of the

15

court.

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

THE COURT:

20

Thank you, Sergeant.

21

No further questions.

Anything further, Attorney Hans?


Nothing, Your Honor.
Nothing.
You can step down.

And

leave everything right on your desk there.

22

THE WITNESS:

23

THE COURT:

24

Theres another witness available?

25

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, sir.

26

THE COURT:

All right.

27

Thank you.

Hans?

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thanks.

Whos that, Attorney

Whos the next witness?

113
1

ATTY. HANS:

Squad Van Chief.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

THE COURT:

Sergeant Ralph Soda, Major Crime

Soda?

114
1

R A L P H

S O D A

having been first duly sworn by the clerk, was examined and

testified under oath as follows:

THE CLERK:

Would you please state your name,

spell your name last name and provide your title and

business address for the record.

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

Sergeant Ralph Soda, last name is

S-O-D-A; currently assigned to Central District Major

Crime and the address for the department is 1111

10

Country Club Road in Middletown, Connecticut.

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. HANS:

13
14

Attorney Hans.
Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:


Q

Good afternoon, Sergeant Soda.

Could you tell us,

15

were you involved in a risk search and seizure back on

16

August 29th, 2014 at a residence at 6 Douglas Drive in

17

Cromwell, Connecticut?

18

Yes, I was.

19

Okay.

And could you tell us what was your role in

20

that search and seizure, could you describe your role that

21

day?

22

Yes.

We conducted the risk warrant at that residence

23

and I was a supervisor for the detectives that were there to

24

search the residence.

25

Okay.

26

Yes.

27

Okay.

Were you part of the van unit?

And how long have you been a Connecticut State

115
1

Trooper, sir?

Since June of 2001.

Okay.

4
5

And how long have you been with the

Connecticut Major Crimes Unit?


A

I did two stints there, this is my second stint, but

I started initially in September of 2006, and I came back

again in the beginning of 2013.

ATTY. HANS:

Honor?

10
11

May I approach the witness, Your

THE COURT:
Q

You may.

Im showing you States Exhibit 1, its been entered

12

as a full exhibit in this hearing.

13

a look at it for a few minutes and tell me if you recognize

14

that document?

15

And, sir, could you take

(Pause)

16

Yes.

17

Okay.

This is what we consider a risk warrant.


Now, do you know of State's Exhibit 1, the

18

risk warrant that was signed on August 29th, 2014, do you

19

know if it was executed that same day?

20

Yes.

21

And were you one of the people that arrived at 6

22

Douglas Drive in Cromwell, Connecticut to effectuate that

23

warrant?

24

Yes.

25

Okay.

And did you actually have any direct contact

26

with the occupant of the residence at 6 Douglas Drive, and

27

that would be Edward Taupier?

116
1

Briefly.

Okay.

3
4

Can you tell us a little bit about that,

Sergeant Soda?
A

When we got to the residence he was in custody at the

time and I just explained briefly what the detectives that

were there, that he was going to be back at Troop H, and

they would explain to him what was occurring.

8
9
10

Okay.

was he outside his residence or were you already in the


residence?

11

No.

12

Okay.

13

When you say he was in custody, Sergeant Soda,

He was outside of the residence.


And when you say he was in custody, how do you

know he was in custody?

14

He had handcuffs on.

15

Okay.

16
17
18

And so do you see the subject of the risk

warrant, Mr. Taupier, here in court today?


A

I believe its the gentleman sitting over here to my

right.

19

And whats he wearing, sir?

20

Hes got the blue blazer on, got his hands together.

21

ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, just the record

22

should reflect that hes identified the defendant,

23

Edward Taupier.

24

THE COURT:

It can reflect that he says he

25

believes that is the same person that he saw that

26

day.

27

So you actually personally did briefly speak with Mr.

117
1

Taupier, was that before you entered into his residence to

conduct the search for firearms?

Correct.

Was that before anybody had entered into his

5
6
7

residence to conduct the search for firearms?


A

I believe our SWAT Team had gone in there to make

sure everything was -- the, the residence was safe to enter.

Okay.

So they did a security sweep not a search?

Correct.

10

Okay.

So do you recall, I know its been a long time

11

its now March of 2015 this was back in August 29, 2014,

12

what was the extent of your conversation, what information

13

did you tell Mr. Taupier regarding what the state police

14

were doing there that day?

15

I dont know if I told him anything other than, you

16

know, just -- he, he appeared to be cooperative, he wasnt

17

yelling or swearing, screaming or anything of that nature.

18

I just told him that, you know, the detectives would explain

19

what is occurring as they brought him back for -- to the

20

Troop H barracks and that was about it.

21
22
23
24
25

Okay.

And did you tell him that they would be

searching his residence for firearms?


A

I believe I told him that we would be going in and I

think that would be


Q

Okay.

And do you know if they left a copy of States

26

Exhibit 1, a copy of the risk warrant or a risk warrant

27

affidavit at the residence of 6 Douglas Drive in Cromwell,

118
1

Connecticut on the date of August 29th, 2014?

I don't know.

Okay.

4
5
6
7

Do you who would have been able to leave a

copy of that?
A

Usually the detectives there that are assigned to,

assigned to me would leave a copy of the, of the warrant.


Q

Okay.

Do you know -- do you have any personal

knowledge of whether or not State's Exhibit 1, the risk and

seizure warrant, was left at 6 Douglas Drive residence that

10

day?

11

I don't.

12

But fair to say detectives or yourself apprised Mr.

13

Taupier of what was occurring and the contents of the

14

warrant, which was that they would be seizing and searching

15

for firearms and ammunition?

16
17

Yes, that was the extent, pretty much, of the

conversation.

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

THE COURT:

20

Attorney Baird.

21

No further questions, Your Honor.


Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:

22

Is it Sergeant Soda?

23

Yes.

24

Sergeant Soda, did you prepare any reports related to

25

your visit on August 29th, 2014 to Mr. Taupiers home in

26

Cromwell?

27

I did not.

119
1

Did you ever prior to today see the firearm seizure

warrant that was prepared and issued and executed on August

29th, 2014?

I dont recall if I did.

The reason Im saying that

is when we staged, prior to this, I know the warrant was

about to be signed and we were waiting for it to be signed

before we actually executed the arrest.

did see it that day.

9
10
11

Did you ever physically take custody of the firearm

seizure warrant that was executed on August 29th, 2014?


A

I dont recall.

I, I dont believe I did.

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:

16

I cant recall if I

No further questions.

Anything further?
Yes.

Now, you said that you dont recall if you ever took

17

physical custody of States Exhibit 1, the warrant.

How

18

many -- were there multiple detectives and troopers on site

19

at 6 Douglas Drive, Cromwell, Connecticut on August 29th,

20

2014?

21

Yes.

22

Can you tell us about how many you think were there,

23

just an estimate?

24

That conducted the actual search, is that what youre

25

asking?

26

Yes.

27

Approximately ten detectives and there was another

120
1

sergeant beside myself that was -- remained at the

residence.

Okay.

And so you don't have any personal knowledge

of whether or not those other nine had possession of the

risk warrant affidavit?

I dont.

Fair to say someone there -- would you have gone into

the house and executed without the affidavit, without the

warrant?

10

No.

If I may, Detective DeJesus and Detective

11

Katrenya that signed the warrant, I believe that -- I know

12

they were at the residence once we arrived there once this

13

was signed.

14

Mr. Taupier while I was there, so I know he was the one

15

obviously in possession of it since he had it signed, from

16

there I dont know where it went.

17

In fact, Detective DeJesus was speaking with

ATTY. HANS:

18

Okay.

Just a moment, Your Honor.

(Pause)

19

ATTY. HANS:

20

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:

21

No further questions, Your Honor.

Was the firearms seizure warrant -- when went to the

22

staging area was it your understanding that a firearms

23

seizure warrant was being sought?

24

Yes.

25

Were you given updates about the status of the

26
27

issuance of the firearms seizure warrant?


A

Yes.

I dont know who the commanding officer was

121
1

there or someone that received the initial phone call that

the warrant was -- has been authorized and we are free to go

ahead with the execution of our plan.

Okay.

And to your knowledge when someone received

that phone call that the warrant had been signed and you

were free to go forward with the search, had the physical

warrant actually arrived at your staging location?

8
9

I only know that when I -- by the time I arrived,

excuse me, as the, the -- our -- the Emergency Services Unit

10

went to the location.

I did not see the warrant at the

11

time, but when I spoke with Mr. Taupier when he was in

12

custody the detective that had the warrant signed he was on-

13

scene with me.

14

And that would be Trooper DeJesus?

15

Correct.

16

And did he have a copy of the warrant that you saw?

17

I dont recall seeing it.

18

Im sure he did since he

had it, he was the detective that had it signed.

19

But you did not see it?

20

Not that I recall.

21

THE COURT:

22

And nothing else, Attorney Hans?

23

ATTY. HANS:

24

THE COURT:

25

step down.

26

there.

27

Nothing else, Attorney Baird?

No, sir.
Thank you, Sergeant Soda.

You may

You may leave the things on your desk

THE WITNESS:

Thank you, Your Honor.

122
1

THE COURT:

intends to call?

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

Any other witnesses that the State

No, Your Honor.


All right.

there other witnesses that you wanted to call?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

All right.

THE COURT:

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

12

THE COURT:

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

And who might that be?

I have what I believe will be a

short witness, Trooper Jennilee Fratellenico.

10

14

Attorney Baird, were

Okay.

Here now?

Yes.

Okay.
And Trooper Katrenyas here as

well, he may be a little longer than her.


THE COURT:

All right.

So Fratellenico, we

could try to see if we can get that done.

123
1

J E N N I L E E

having been first duly sworn by the clerk, was examined and

testified under oath as follows:

F R A T E L L E N I C O

THE CLERK:

Would you kindly state your name,

spell your name last name and provide your title and

business address for the record.

THE WITNESS:

Trooper Jennilee Fratellenico, F-

R-A-T-E-L-L-E-N-I-C-O; Connecticut State Police.

THE COURT:

Your last name, F-R-A-T-E-L-L-E-N --

10

THE WITNESS:

11

THE COURT:

I-C-O.

12

All right.

Attorney Baird.

13

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:

14

Thank you.

I-C-O.

Trooper Fratellenico, Im going to provide you an

15

exhibit, thats been marked as Exhibit 3.

And if I could

16

direct your attention in Exhibit 3 to the second to last

17

paragraph on Page 6.

18

Yes.

19

It references a Trooper Fratellenico on Page 6 of

20

Exhibit 3 as a trooper who went on Tuesday, September 9th,

21

2014 to the Middletown Superior Court.

22

was you?

23

24
25

May I verify that

I dont remember specifically, but I -- I just dont

remember.
Q

Okay.

So let me ask you this, do you have any memory

26

of returning a warrant with regard to the matter of State

27

versus Taupier?

124
1
2
3
4

I dont remember specifically.

I do remember coming

to this court, but I dont remember specifically the reason.


Q

And when warrants are returned -- how long have you

been a trooper?

Four years.

Have you returned search and seizure warrants to

courts before?

Yes.

Does it require that two troopers return the warrant?

10

Thats a difficult question because a -- I wouldnt

11

say necessarily requires, but if we are doing different

12

errands that happen to be both of us and one of the stops is

13

this court then we would both come in.

14
15

Is it possible that day you just accompanied Trooper

DeJesus to court because you were with him on other matters?

16

Thats possible.

17

Had you had any involvement in a case involving

18

Edward Taupier prior to September 19th, 2014?

19

Prior to September 19th or --

20

Ninth, September 9th, 2014?

21

Involved other than this case or --

22

Yeah.

23

Oh, other than this case, no.

24

Okay.

Well, with regard to this case prior to

25

September 9th, 2014 had you been involved in the risk

26

warrant that was executed at Mr. Taupiers home on August

27

29th, 2014?

125
1

No, maam.

Had you been involved with his arrest, the arrest

that was made on August 29th, 2014?

No, maam.

And subsequent to September 9th, 2014 were you

involved in Mr. Taupier's case or investigation or anything

of that matter?

8
9
10
11
12
13

I was involved, but I dont remember the date so I

dont want to say whether I was before that date or not.


I was involved at one point.
Q

Did that involvement have anything to do with the

risk warrant that was executed on August 29th, 2014?


A

14

No, maam.
ATTY. BAIRD:

15
16

I,

If I could just have Exhibit 1?


(Pause)

Im handing you Exhibit 1, and Im just going to ask

17

you to look at the document, all of its pages, and then Im

18

going to ask you if youve seen it before or recognize it.

19
20

(Pause)
A

I dont remember seeing this before.

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

22

THE COURT:

23

Any questions of the trooper?

24

ATTY. HANS:

25
26
27

No further then, Your Honor.

Thank you.

Just one.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. HANS:


Q

So about seven months ago back on September 9, 2014

you may have accompanied Trooper DeJesus to Middletown

126
1

regarding this warrant, but you have no independent

recollection of it?

Thats correct.

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

Thats it.

Thank you, very much.

You can step down.

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

No further questions, Your Honor.

Thank you.
All right.

Its about four minutes

of one, just quickly lets lay out our schedule for

10

later, after we take our luncheon recess well

11

reconvene at two.

12

You have trooper -- the co-affiant and youre

13

going to be calling that trooper, am I right,

14

Attorney Baird?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.
All right.

Who else are you

17

planning to call in connection with our hearing?

18

know we have the issue concerning the colonel; we

19

have the issues concerning Judge Mullarkey.

20

indicated there were four troopers that you had

21

subpoenaed.

22

from plus the co-affiant, right?

You had

Is this the four, the three weve heard

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

So thats four; Judge

25

Mullarkeys five; the colonel is six; Attorney

26

Melchiorre is seven.

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

And who am I forgetting?

Chief Salvatore, who was released

127
1
2

from his subpoena.


THE COURT:

All right.

Then well reconvene at

one oclock -- two o'clock rather and you will be

able to call the trooper whos available.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Thank you.
Now, and I know that youre trying

to see if you get a return call, obviously given your

medical situation if you learn that you have an

appointment scheduled let me know and well try to

10

accommodate everyones schedule.

11

till two oclock.

12
13
14

Thank you.

(Recess at 1:00.
THE COURT:
sorry.

Im

And you have your next witness?

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

Trooper Katrenya.

17

other troopers or --

Your Honor, I was just looking for


I dont know if he left with the

18

MR. MACNAMARA:

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

MR. MACNAMARA:

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

22

MR. MACNAMARA:

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

MR. MACNAMARA:

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

Resume at 2:03.)

Please be seated, everyone.

15

26

Well be in recess

Hes coming back.

Hes back.
Yeah, hes back.

Yeah.

Hes back, okay.


He went to lunch by himself.

Is he out there?
I can see if -Oh, okay.

I could go look for

him, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

No, thats all right.

The marshals

128
1

will check.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

You can be seated.


Sorry for the tardiness, Your

Honor.

6
7

Okay.

(Pause)
THE COURT:

Good afternoon.

129
1

A N D R E W

having been first duly sworn by the clerk, was examined and

testified under oath as follows:

K A T R E N Y A

THE CLERK:

Would you kindly state your name,

spell your name last name and provide your title and

business address for the record.

THE WITNESS:

Trooper Andrew Katrenya, K-A-T-R-

E-N-Y-A; 631 Amity Road in Bethany.

9
10

Thank you.

THE COURT:

Attorney Baird.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BAIRD:

11

Good afternoon, Trooper Katrenya.

12

Good afternoon, maam.

13

Im going to direct your attention to a firearms

14

seizure warrant that was issued on August 29th, 2014, its

15

been admitted as Exhibit 1, and Ill provide you with a copy

16

of that at this time.

17
18
19

(Pause)
Q

Trooper Katrenya, you were an affiant on the warrant

thats Exhibit 1, correct?

20

Yes, I was.

21

Along with Trooper DeJesus?

22

Yes.

23

What role did you play in drafting the affidavit in

24
25

support of the warrant?


A

I, I provided Trooper DeJesus with a previous copy

26

of, of -- an example of a prior risk warrant I had done and

27

then just reviewing with Danny -- excuse me, Trooper DeJesus

130
1

used that and then I just reviewed it and was present while

it was presented to the court.

The previous copy of the firearms seizure warrant

that you provided Trooper DeJesus, did you provide that by

e-mail to him?

I do not recall.

And if you didnt provide it by e-mail would you have

8
9

handed him a document?


A

He may have -- I may have handed him a hardcopy or I

10

may have -- he may have just reviewed it off my computer

11

screen.

12

example.

13

I dont, I dont recall exactly how I gave him that

And so am I correct that it was Trooper DeJesus who

14

took the previous or the warrant that you provided him and

15

drafted the warrant with regard to Mr. Taupier?

16

Thats correct.

17

Did you have an opportunity to review the firearms

18

seizure warrant for Mr. Taupiers residence as it was

19

drafted by Trooper DeJesus?

20

Yes, I did.

21

Did you add anything to it?

22

No, I did not.

23

Did you take anything away from it?

24

No, I did not.

25

And what was the purpose of you reviewing the

26
27

firearms seizure warrant that Trooper DeJesus had prepared?


A

Because I was a co-affiant I would be swearing to

131
1
2
3

the, the facts contained within.


Q

And after you reviewed it do you know if it was

reviewed by your supervisor?

Yes.

And who was your supervisor?

That night it was Sergeant Seth Mancini.

Were you there when Sergeant Mancini reviewed the

seizure warrant?

I was not.

10

When was the next time at -- well, let me ask you

11

this, when did you -- when was the next time you saw the

12

firearms seizure warrant after you reviewed it, which was

13

prior to Sergeant Mancini seeing it?

14

THE COURT:

Im sorry.

15

more time?

16

were inquiring about.

17
18

Could you ask that one

I just didnt quite understand what you

So you reviewed the firearms seizure warrant after

Trooper DeJesus finished it, correct?

19

Yes.

20

And you testified that at some point Sergeant Mancini

21

reviewed it, correct?

22

Thats correct.

23

After Sergeant Mancini reviewed it, did you have a

24
25

chance to see the warrant again?


A

Im not sure if I saw it before or after Sergeant

26

Mancini reviewed it, but I had a chance to, to see it the

27

day that it was presented to the court, which was August

132
1

29th.

So you reviewed it one time?

Yes.

And did you accompany Trooper DeJesus to go to 101

Lafayette Street to have a prosecutor review the warrant?

Yes.

And was that prosecutor Attorney Melchiorre?

Yes.

Were you present when Attorney Melchiorre reviewed

10

the firearms seizure warrant?

11

Yes.

12

And was Trooper DeJesus present with you and Attorney

13
14
15
16

Melchiorre at that time?


A

He was in the building, I dont know for sure if he

was in the room or not, but he was for sure in the building.
Q

Do you know if anyone else was present other than you

17

and possibly Trooper DeJesus when Attorney Melchiorre

18

reviewed the firearms seizure warrant?

19

No, I do not.

20

Did you then take the firearms seizure warrant to a

21

judge after it was reviewed by Attorney Melchiorre?

22

Yes.

23

And what judge was that?

24

I dont recall.

25

Were you present when the judge reviewed the warrant?

26

Yes.

27

And was Trooper DeJesus present?

133
1

Yes.

And did you swear to the warrant at that time?

Yes, I did.

And did Judge Mullarkey sign it at that time?

Yes.

Looking at Exhibit 1 on Page 4 of 6, if I may direct

your attention to a black marker line in the middle of the

page.

Do you see that?

Yes.

10

Do you know if that black marked line was present on

11

the firearms seizure warrant that you presented to Judge

12

Mullarkey?

13

It was not.

14

Do you know what words, if any, are underneath that

15

black marked line on Page 4 of Exhibit 1?

16

No.

17

Was the handwritten or were the handwritten words

18

Edward F. Taupier date of birth 5/4/65 with an initial and a

19

badge number on the warrant that you presented to Judge

20

Mullarkey?

21

No, it was not.

22

Do you know when, at what point in time, the black

23

mark and the words were placed on Page 4 of 6 of Exhibit 1?

24

No, I do not.

25

When did you first become aware that the risk warrant

26

that you had sworn to on August 29th, 2014 contains a black

27

mark with the written words on it on Page 4?

134
1

Today.

And did you discuss with any -- what time today did

3
4
5
6

you find that out?


A

Just now.

I, I had not seen the -- that correction

prior to you handing me this exhibit today.


Q

Is it fair to say then that you do not have any

copies of the -- or a copy of the warrant that was signed

by Judge Mullarkey which did not contain the black line and

the words that are on Page 4 of Exhibit 1?

10

Thats fair to say.

11

You did not keep a copy?

12

I do not have a copy.

13

Are you able to tell by looking at the handwritten

14

words on Page 4 of 6 of Exhibit 1, when those words were

15

written on the warrant?

16

No.

17

Are you able to tell by Page 4 of Exhibit 1, when the

18

black mark was made on the warrant?

19

No.

20

Do you any knowledge of whether either the black mark

21

or the words were made prior to the execution of the

22

firearms seizure warrant on August 29th, 2014?

23

I do not.

24

Were you present at Taupier home in Cromwell on

25

August 29th, 2014 when the firearms seizure warrant was

26

executed

27

No.

135
1

And you have never spoken to Sergeant Medina about

this warrant in Exhibit 1 and the redaction and the words

that are written on Page 4?

I was aware of a correction that was made, but I had

not specifically spoken -- I did not speak to Sergeant

Medina about what changes or -- to -- exact details of what

Im looking at right now.

8
9

So when did you first become aware then that changes

been made to Exhibit 1?

10

I, I dont know to be honest with you.

11

Was it prior to today?

12

Yes.

13

Was it close in time to August 29th, 2014?

14

By close, I mean, by close Im not sure what you

15
16

mean.
Q

17

Okay.

Let me clarify that than.


ATTY. BAIRD:

18
19

You submitted --

If I could have Exhibit 2?


(Pause)

You submitted a search and seizure warrant on

20

September 19th, 2014 to seize the firearms and ammunition

21

that had previously been seized from Mr. Taupiers home on

22

August 29th, 2014, didnt you?

23

I did.

24

At the time when you presented the search and seizure

25

warrant on September 19th, 2014 had you been aware -- made

26

aware at that time or prior of changes in the risk warrant

27

that was signed by Judge Mullarkey on July [sic] 29th, 2014?

136
1

I do not recall.

So it could have been before September 19th, 2014

when you became aware of the changes?

Yes.

Or it could have been after?

Yes.

Are you able at all to place the time period when you

became aware of the changes into a period of two or three

months?

10

I dont, I dont recall so, no.

11

So it could have been yesterday when you found out?

12

It was before yesterday.

13

It could have been last week when you first found

14

out?

15

It was, it was some time in 2014.

16

In looking at Exhibit 2, which is the September 19th,

17

2014 seizure warrant, is that your -- does your signature

18

appear on that warrant as an affiant?

19

Yes, it does.

20

When you appeared before -- was it Judge Diana who

21

you appeared before and swore to the veracity of that

22

affidavit?

23

Yes.

24

When you appeared before Judge Diana did you inform

25

the judge that there had been a change made to the firearms

26

seizure warrant that had been executed on August 29th, 2014?

27

No, I did not.

137
1

When you signed the seizure warrant dated September

19, 2014 to seize the firearms that were already in the

custody of the state police did you inform Judge Diana that

the firearms were at 1111 Country Club Road in Middletown?

I believe, I believe thats the address on the search

warrant, so that, that would be my only -- thats the only

reference to 111 Country Club Road.

tell him, no.

1111 Country Club Road.

10
11

I didnt specifically

I did not specifically say the guns are at

Who drafted the September 19th, 2014 search warrant

in Exhibit 2?

12

I believe Detective DeJesus.

13

And so you were the co-affiant on that warrant as

14

well?

15

Thats correct.

16

When you presented the September 19th, 2014 -- when

17

you presented the seizure warrant dated September 19th, 2014

18

to the judge did you know where the 15 firearms and

19

ammunition were at that time?

20

No.

21

Do you know if they were at 1111 Country Club Road in

22

Middletown?

23

No.

24

Do you mean that you don't know if were or not or you

25

know they werent there?

26

I do not know where they were.

27

You don't know where they were?

138
1
2
3

I did not -- I do not know if they were at 1111

Country Club Road, if they were there.


Q

Did you have any communication with Attorney

Melchiorre from the States Attorneys Office in Hartford

about a change that had been made on the firearms seizure

warrant on Page 4?

No, I did not.

Did you have any contact with Judge Mullarkey about

9
10

the change that had been made on Page 4 of the firearms


seizure warrant?

11

No, I did not.

12

Do you have any knowledge of whether Attorney

13

Melchiorre knew about or knows about the change that was

14

made on Page 4 of the firearms seizure warrant?

15

No.

16

Do you have any knowledge of whether Judge Mullarkey

17

knows about the change that was made on Page 4, Exhibit 1,

18

the firearms seizure warrant?

19

No.

20

Did you participate in seizing any of the firearms at

21

Mr. Taupiers home in Cromwell on August 29th, 2014?

22

No.

23

When Judge Mullarkey signed or when a Superior Court

24

judge signed the warrant on August 29th, 2014, the firearms

25

seizure warrant, Exhibit 1, did you make any phone call to

26

any officers who were already at Mr. Taupiers home to tell

27

them that the warrant had been signed?

139
1

No.

Do you know if Trooper DeJesus did?

No.

Do you know if the troopers and the law

enforcement personnel -- well, first of all, do you know if

when the warrant was signed by the Superior Court judge on

August 29th, 2014 if there were already law enforcement

officers in a staging area near Mr. Taupiers home in

Cromwell?

10

No.

11

You have no knowledge of that?

12

I do not.

13

Did you have any involvement in taking any

14

photographs at Mr. Taupiers home on August 29th, 2014?

15

No.

16

Did you ever observe any of the firearms and

17

ammunition that were seized from Mr. Taupiers home on

18

August 29th, 2014 after that date?

19

I dont believe so.

20

Now, am I correct that you joined Trooper DeJesus in

21

visiting a Mr. Satula to seize or obtain seven additional

22

firearms other than those that were seized in Cromwell from

23

Mr. Taupiers home?

24

No, you're not.

25

Did you have any involvement -- let me put it this

26

way, did you physically see any firearms that were seized

27

from Mr. Satula's home pursuant to the firearms seizure

140
1
2

warrant or voluntary surrender?


A

No.

3
4

ATTY. BAIRD:

I dont have any further

questions.

ATTY. HANS:

No questions, Your Honor.

(Pause)

THE COURT:

All right.

THE WITNESS:

Thank you, very much.

Thank you, Your Honor.

(Pause)

10

THE COURT:

All right.

Now, as far as

11

additional witnesses that, Attorney Baird, you wish

12

to call, and I know one of those witnesses was the

13

colonel of the state police.

14

question now.

15

colonel?

16

Lets get back to that

What exactly would you want from the

Whats your proffer?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Your Honor, over the lunch period

17

I did inform the Assistant Attorney General here on

18

behalf of the colonels receipt of the subpoena, I

19

did inform him that I would not, that I would not be

20

pursuing that subpoena.

21

THE COURT:

22

ATTY. BARID:

23

Oh, thank you.


And would release the colonel from

that.

24

THE COURT:

All right.

25

much.

26

what you need.

27

Attorney Melchiorre?

Well, thank you, very

Im appreciative of your efforts to identify


Now, what about with regard to

141
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

I did have the marshal come to

court and provide me with the return, it appears that

it was served on a representative named Claire of the

Hartford States Attorneys Office who, from the

marshals representation, indicated that she could

accept service, which I understand Attorney

Melchiorres position that service is not sufficient.

So given that information she was not sufficiently

subpoenaed to be here today.

10

THE COURT:

11

perfect the service?

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

All right.

Is it your desire to

It is not.
All right.

Then I guess the

14

question Im asking you, I know that you had hoped to

15

have her here and Im inviting you to take the steps

16

necessary to ensure that she does appear if you wish

17

the time to do that.

18

then that will end my inquiry.

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

If you don't wish to call her

I do not wish to call her.


All right.

Then that leaves, I

21

believe, but correct me if Im wrong, is Judge

22

Mullarkey.

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

Yes.
Putting aside for the moment the

25

question as to His Honors neutrality, putting that

26

aside and dealing only with the sequence of events

27

that have been the subject of the other witnesses'

142
1

testimony, was it your intent to -- or would it be

your intent to ask Judge Mullarkey any questions

about the sequence of events that relate to the

signing, execution, amendment of the warrant?

ATTY. BAIRD:

My response to that, Your Honor,

is somewhat contingent on whether the testimony -- in

other words, if the State intends to present any more

testimony in rebuttal at this hearing.

THE COURT:

Rebuttal on the execution -- we

10

havent gotten into the neutrality question, but you

11

mean if the States going to offer any rebuttal about

12

the events that took place, the sequence?

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

14

THE COURT:

Yes.
Is the State offering any additional

15

testimony on the subject of the warrant, its

16

execution and later amendment?

17

ATTY. HANS:

18

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.


No.

All right.

So now that youve

19

heard that the State is not of a mind to introduce

20

additional evidence, does that inform your decision

21

as to whether or not there would be any questions of

22

Judge Mullarkey on the sequence of events?

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

Our position is, is that Judge

24

Mullarkey has evidence that is relevant, but its the

25

States burden in this hearing and if the State

26

chooses not to pursue that relevant evidence then I

27

will argue that the State did not meet its burden.

143
1

THE COURT:

Well, I suspect that the State's

aware of what issue is before the Court, but we or I

have before me a motion to quash a subpoena that the

defense served on Judge Mullarkey and Im attempting

to identify whether or not there needs to be a ruling

on that.

sequence of events separate and apart from the

neutrality question.

you want and that may include the fact that absent

First Im doing that with regard to the

So, youre free to argue what

10

Judge Mullarkeys testimony offered by the State that

11

the States position is weakened.

12

factual information that you would seek from Judge

13

Mullarkey about the events on the 29th of August and

14

thereafter?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

But is there any

I would seek from him testimony

16

that he was informed of the change and the additional

17

language.

18
19

THE COURT:

Testimony that he was informed or

about whether he was informed?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

About whether he was informed.


Whether he was informed.

And what

22

would be your claim as to the relevance of that

23

having been brought to Judge Mullarkeys attention as

24

it relates to the issues that are before this Court?

25

(Pause)

26
27

ATTY. BAIRD:
that.

It's not.

I wouldnt ask him

I would have no questions about that.

144
1

THE COURT:

No questions.

All right.

So it

then would seem to me that we have closed the

evidence with both sides having been given

opportunity to present any testimony that it wishes

as it regards August 29th and the events that

followed.

7
8
9

Am I correct in my understanding, Attorney Hans,


youve called everything that you want to put on?
ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

10

THE COURT:

Okay.

And, Attorney Baird?

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

12

THE COURT:

13

So that leaves us then with the -- and let me

Yes, Your Honor.


Thank you, both.

14

make sure I have -- Ive given the -- the statement

15

Ive just made I want to make sure everyone

16

understands it in the manner that I had meant it.

17

Attorney Baird's claim involving the warrant

18

encompassed an argument about the date that Judge

19

Mullarkey wrote, it encompassed the claim about the

20

language that wrongfully appeared on the warrant

21

itself and was later redacted.

22

also encompassed a challenge based on the fact Mr.

23

Taupier was not provided a copy of the warrant at the

24

time of its execution.

25

The defense claim

Are there any other claims, Attorney Baird, that

26

youre raising within the confines of this motion to

27

suppress the guns and ammunition?

Again, putting the

145
1

neutral magistrate issue to the side for the time

being.

ATTY. BAIRD:

We are claiming that the September

19th, 2014 warrant did not specify the particular

place to be searched, that the judge who signed the

warrant on September 19th, 2014 was not apprised that

the warrant referenced in Paragraph 10 of the

affidavit had been changed after it was issued and

executed by the judge.

10
11

THE COURT:

Thats fair.

claims raised concerning the 9/19 search warrant?

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

So theres additional

Yes.
Separate and apart from the claims

regarding the risk warrant?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.
Did I correctly identify the scope

17

of your argument as it pertains to the risk warrant?

18

So its a three-pronged challenge as I understand it;

19

the date, the information that wrongfully appeared on

20

the warrant itself, and the failure to provide a copy

21

to Mr. Taupier at the time of execution.

22

also have the issue about Judge Mullarkeys

23

impartiality and we have the claim regarding

24

shortcomings in the 9/19 warrant.

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

26

THE COURT:

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Then we

Yes.

Does that cover everything?


This may be related to what the

146
1

Court has already covered under the August 29th, 2014

warrant, but I just want to place it on the record

that this also includes the photographs that were

taken of the firearms in the home on August 29th,

2014 pursuant to what was alleged to be a risk

warrant that was executed for the safekeeping of Mr.

Taupier and others, not for the purpose of gathering

evidence.

THE COURT:

I view that as -- that exactly

10

expands your claim as to what should be suppressed if

11

evidence is to be suppressed.

12

only the suppression of the guns and ammunition, but

13

also any photographs taken of those items during the

14

course of the search which you claim was unlawful in

15

the first instance.

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

THE COURT:

Youre seeking not

Is that correct?
Yes.

All right.

Now, do you have -- so

18

now lets zero in on what seems to me anyway, to be

19

the last issue, and thats about whether Judge

20

Mullarkey was -- about his neutrality.

21

and I dont know if this witness is still available,

22

but you indicated that you had a witness who was

23

present in the courtroom on July 11th of 2013 during

24

the course of the Peterson trial who heard Judge

25

Mullarkey?

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

You indicated

Yes.
All right.

And can you make a

147
1

proffer as to what that witness will claim was said

by Judge Mullarkey?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

Okay.
The witness was in the courtroom,

had heard comments by Judge Mullarkey about the

Professor Bogus article in the University of

California Davis Law Review.

THE COURT:

Excuse me, I beg your pardon.

This

10

is the reference that Judge Mullarkey made on the

11

record?

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

I guess what my question was

14

inartful then, because I have what was said of

15

record.

16

word ashamed, can you make a proffer as to what the

17

witness who purports to have heard the statement

18

would testify the statement was?

19

This sentence or statement that included the

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

No.

Only that it had to

20

do with the Second Amendment, being ashamed, racist.

21

I know that at the time I had my client next to me

22

and an intern who is African American and it seemed

23

to be related somehow to that.

24

be what he would testify to.

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

I believe that would

So is the witness your intern?


No.
Oh.

Its someone else who was in

148
1
2
3
4

the courtroom?
ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

the intern is available.


THE COURT:

No.

I mean, I could -- I mean,


I didnt, you know --

I didnt know who -- so it was

a person who was in the courtroom in the audience at

the time the statement was uttered?

7
8
9
10
11

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

Actually, my legal

investigator, Ed Peruta was there.


THE COURT:

Well, is that your -- is that the

witness you intend -ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, hes the one thats

12

available today.

13

testimony about this today, but.

14

THE COURT:

I mean, I wasnt planning on having

All right.

Well, then Mr. Peruta

15

isn't he the -- maybe Im misunderstanding the

16

transcript pages, but isnt he the subject of certain

17

of the transcripts?

18

by you as a witness or am I misreading the

19

transcript?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

That he was going to be called

I think he was called for a small

21

part of that trial having to do with, I cant

22

remember, the transfer of the firearms or something

23

like that.

24

at the trial for a small part towards the end.

25
26
27

He was a witness as my legal investigator

THE COURT:

Because Mr. Peruta is mentioned in

this transcript about a TV show or something?


ATTY. HANS:

Yep.

149
1
2

ATTY. BAIRD:

Judge Mullarkey was familiar with

Mr. Peruta and brought that up.

ATTY. HANS:

Its Page 20, Your Honor.

the first transcript.

THE COURT:

Yes.

Yep, of

I know the page because Im

reading it.

But Judge Mullarkey says on Page 20 at

Line 27 in the context, I think, of Mr. Peruta, Judge

Mullarkey says the following: Well, if he is ever

going to testify for something.

So was the context

10

of this discussion such that you had indicated or

11

provided notice to the prosecution of your intention

12

to call Mr. Peruta as a witness in the Peterson case?

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

I believe -- I would have to look

14

at the transcript.

15

investigator and he helps on cases and sometimes I

16

need to call him.

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

Its possible, hes my legal

Okay.
And so I probably named him as a

19

potential witness or as a member of my office because

20

it was a jury trial.

21

THE COURT:

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

All right.
But I dont recall that part.

So your proffer is that Judge

24

Mullarkey stated that someone should be ashamed, I

25

guess, and something about racist, that Judge

26

Mullarkey used the word racist or I dont

27

understand.

150
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

Because thats not in your motion.


Thats not in the motion.
So is it your intention to offer

that or is that something, because theres no mention

of that in the motion that you filed today.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I mean, I was not familiar

at the time with what Judge Mullarkey was talking

about until I read the Professor Bogus article, its

10

an 80-page article and I read it.

11

theres theory out there that if you support the

12

Second Amendment that you should be ashamed because

13

its roots are in racism in the South the try to deny

14

African American firearms so they cannot insurrect

15

against white people.

16

before it was brought up.

17

THE COURT:

And I guess

I was not aware of that theory

All right.

I guess what Im trying

18

to do is the word racist as you mentioned initially

19

I thought was pointed toward or was a reference to

20

Judge Mullarkeys beliefs.

21

it that there was a mention of a theory raised in a

22

scholarly piece that the Second Amendment was rooted

23

in racist beliefs of others, is that something that

24

Judge Bogus -- Im sorry, Professor Bogus discusses

25

in his article?

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

THE COURT:

But now do I understand

Yes, yes.
Well, I just didn't want the record

151
1

to be left with this possible interpretation that you

had witnesses prepared to testify that Judge

Mullarkey had either made a racist statement or

harbored racist beliefs.

5
6

ATTY. BAIRD:
at all.

7
8

13

Thats fine.

So it would be your

proffer that Mr. Peruta


ATTY. BAIRD:

I dont know what he recalls from

this, I havent discussed it with him.

11
12

Thats not what he said

No, no.

THE COURT:

9
10

No, no.

THE COURT:

Well, whats the States view on

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, I think its very

this?

14

attenuated, this is a separate, unrelated case that

15

occurred in Tolland almost two years ago.

16

the transcript you saw is July 11th, 2013.

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. HANS:

19

I think

It is.
If you look at State v. Edman, 281

Conn. 444.

20

THE COURT:

21

ATTY. HANS:

I did
It talks about considering all the

22

circumstances in determining whether a magistrate is

23

neutral.

24

Second Amendment two years ago off the record has no

25

bearing on whether the four corners of this document

26

supported probable cause.

27

relationship with Mr. Taupier, theres no evidence of

And certainly something he said about the

He has no personal

152
1

that.

relationship with any of the parties.

this is really far afield.

attenuated.

completely irrelevant and I ask that it be excluded.

Theres no evidence that he had any


So I think

I think its very

Its the States position that its

THE COURT:

All right.

What Im going to ask

you to do, Attorney Baird, is to speak with your

witness now, get an indication, then make a more

detailed proffer as to what you understand Mr.

10

Perutas testimony to be and Ill decide after Ive

11

heard what the proffer is as to whether or not Ill

12

need testimony from him or not.

13

to do that in a relatively short period of time?

14

he in the courthouse?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

So will you be able

He had to go to a short

16

appointment, but I can probably catch him at the

17

appointment in Newington.

18

THE COURT:

Is

Okay.

Oh, all right.

So do you

19

think we could come back into session in ten minutes

20

or so, do you think -- can you reach him by phone

21

or --

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

I can, I believe.
Okay.

I appreciate that.

So why

24

dont we take a ten-minute break and then well allow

25

Attorney Baird to make her proffer and then Ill see

26

where we go from there.

27

Thank you, all.

Ten minutes.

153
1
2
3
4
5

(Recess at 2:44.
THE COURT:

Thank you, please be seated,

everyone.
Attorney Baird, can you give me an idea of what
it is that you would intend to offer from Mr. Peruta?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

9
10
11
12

Yes.

I did contact him.

Thank you.
And his recall on that specific

point is, anyone who supports the Second Amendment


should be ashamed.
THE COURT:

All right.

And thats its sum and

substance?

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

14

THE COURT:

15

Resume at 3:00.)

Yes.
So pretty consistent with what your

motion says?

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

THE COURT:

Yes.
All right.

Then with regard to the

18

motion to suppress as it does pertain to Judge

19

Mullarkey's neutrality are you seeking to call Judge

20

Mullarkey and ask him questions about his neutrality

21

or was it -- did you subpoena Judge Mullarkey in

22

conjunction with the neutrality question or just in

23

conjunction with the warrant and the events that

24

followed it?

25
26
27

ATTY. BAIRD:

I didn't rule out other either, so

my answer would be both.


THE COURT:

Well, weve already covered the fact

154
1

that Judge Mullarkey was -- you would not seek

testimony from him given that the State is -- and you

are free to argue that it weakens the States claim

with regard to the issue concerning Judge Mullarkeys

contested neutrality, what is it that you would

question Judge Mullarkey about?

ATTY. BAIRD:

I would attempt to establish

through testimony that what I represent in the motion

is accurate as to the comment made off the record.

10

THE COURT:

All right.

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

I would ask questions about the

12

references to the Bogus article and whether that

13

indicates a position by his reference that he agrees

14

with whats in the article, that the Second Amendment

15

does not apply to individuals and it should be

16

interpreted as just as applying to militias.

17

I would ask him as well if the statements on the

18

record about Annie Oakley and Bonnie Parker and

19

Wyoming also are indicative of a position that the

20

Second Amendment is not -- is a subject of a

21

derision.

22

those answers, whether those positions impacted at

23

all his review of a firearm seizure warrant submitted

24

pursuant to 29-38c, which particular sought to seize

25

firearms and ammunition from an individual.

26
27

And then I would ask him, depending on

THE COURT:

But in asking those opinions of

Judge Mullarkey directly arent we running afoul of

155
1

the Edman, E-D-M-A-N, case that makes clear that the

issue before me is not the magistrates subjective

views and perceptions, but rather the objective

appearance that statements, in this case its

statements, uttered by the magistrate would suggest

to others that the judge is not unbiased.

other words, if Judge Mullarkey says, well, I am

entirely neutral, I meant those comments as a joke.

Would it be your view that you would thereby be

Because in

10

foreclosed from pursuing this claim because of his

11

subjective -- his statements as to his subjective

12

intent?

13

the claim because its an objective test.

14

I would think you say no, I can still raise

I'm willing, just one final point, Im willing

15

to accept the fact that he has read, Judge Mullarkey,

16

read the Bogus article.

17

anyway, he knew of it, and I think for purposes of

18

resolving the motion I can even assume the truth of

19

what Mr. Peruta claims to recall Judge Mullarkey as

20

having said.

21

Mullarkey as to his subjective intent would be

22

permissible under Edman, especially in this context.

23

He says he has a copy of it,

And I don't think questions to Judge

So anything else that you would be inclined to

24

offer through Judge Mullarkey himself?

And I will

25

certainly allow you to argue not only the words that

26

you claim were said, but also the inferences that you

27

believe are reasonably drawn from those statements.

156
1

So if wish to be heard further on this Ill entertain

that now.

(Pause)

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

I do not.
All right.

Well, then what I will

do for the present time, and consistent with the

cases that are cited by Attorney Mauriello who

appears today to quash the subpoena, I'm going to

accept for purposes of today's hearing that Mr.

10

Peruta would testify that a certain statement was

11

made by Judge Mullarkey off the record to the effect

12

that anyone who supports the Second Amendment should

13

be ashamed.

14

Ill also accept for purposes of the argument

15

that Judge Mullarkey was aware of the Professor Bogus

16

article and was at least familiar with some of the

17

claims Professor Bogus makes within it.

18

those facts being assumed for purposes of todays

19

hearing, and as I say, mindful of the fact that there

20

must be a compelling need or extraordinary

21

circumstances before a judge should be required to

22

testify I will quash the subpoena.

23

the course of the arguments that we make that Ill be

24

entertaining now from both sides, if I change my mind

25

and think somethings come up that needs Judge

26

Mullarkeys testimony Ill revisit it.

27

And with

Certainly during

But for the time being Im going to quash the

157
1

subpoena on Judge Mullarkey.

evidence on all issues in the case as it pertains to

Ms. Bairds motion to suppress.

suppress relates to the guns seized from Mr. Taupier

as well as the ammunition and also any photographs

that were taken at his home on August 29th.

That closes the

That motion to

So I want to hear first from the parties on the

issue of the wrong date, which Ill identify as the

first question.

10

So, Attorney Baird, I know that when you

11

mentioned the wrong date on Wednesday I believe,

12

according to my notes, you may have said that you

13

recognized it could be seen as a scriveners error,

14

but I dont feel that that -- that youre bound by

15

that statement.

16

claim as to why that technical defect undermines the

17

warrants validity?

So do you want to be heard on your

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes, briefly, Your Honor.

19

Based on the testimony that we heard today,

20

which included testimony that Page 4 of 6 of Exhibit

21

1, the firearms seizure warrant, contained what was

22

referred to on numerous occasion as a scriveners

23

error in that it named a person not related to Mr.

24

Taupier or his case, and that because it was a

25

scriveners error it was blackened out and Mr.

26

Taupiers name was added.

27

It's difficult to then claim that another

158
1

scriveners error, the 28th, why that would have not

been also corrected or changed if it was in fact a

scriveners error.

my argument that the fact that the redaction, the

information under the redaction, was blackened out

and information added meant that it went above and

beyond whats referred to a scriveners error.

scriveners error is what appears on the 28th as the

date August 28, 2014, which was not corrected by

10
11

And that will go more directly to

anybody.
So was the scriveners error -- we did have

12

testimony that the warrant was presented on the 29th

13

of 2014, that it was signed while the officers were

14

already in the staging area.

15

testified that he was in the staging area when he

16

received word that the warrant had been signed.

17

it is difficult with the evidence that was heard to

18

make a finding 100 percent of what occurred with

19

regard to the dates.

20

did not present evidence from the actual person who

21

wrote the date in there, but there was evidence

22

presented through other persons that they observed

23

Judge Mullarkey sign it on August 29th.

24

I believe Sergeant Soda

So

It is the State's burden, they

So therefore, in accepting it as a scriveners

25

error in this particular case it takes on more import

26

given all the other alleged irregularities and errors

27

that weve noted in the warrant.

In other words, if

159
1

you have one scriveners error in a warrant is that

okay, if you have five does that make it not okay, at

what point, at what number of scriveners errors do

we get to the point where theyre not just

scriveners errors, they make the warrant not valid.

And in this case, even if you want to say that August

28th, 2014 is a scriveners error, when you consider

it in conjunction with what else was going on in that

warrant, mainly the redaction and the addition of

10

language, although it may have been a scriveners

11

error, in addition with what else was going on, it

12

goes above and beyond that and we would still claim

13

it effects the validity of the warrant.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

And while I did ask you,

15

and I appreciate your effort to confine your initial

16

comments here to the dating flaw, I am not

17

foreclosing you from advancing the claim that you

18

just did at the end there that the Court must look,

19

sort of, at the totality of this.

20

certainly free to point again to the dating problem

21

when I in a few moments ask you to address the

22

mistakes that appeared on the warrant when it

23

referenced apparently another individuals name.

24

before I ask you to address that question.

25

So youre

But

Attorney Hans, on the issue concerning Judge

26

Mullarkey's use of August 28th, and the fact that it

27

appears to be agreed by both sides that thats a

160
1
2

mistake.
ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

And the reason it

wasn't corrected by any of the state troopers is

because it wasn't their mistake.

Judge Mullarkey, it is a separate scriveners error

by a separate entity; namely, the judge who reviewed

the warrant.

State v. Thompson, 307 Conn. 567.

magistrate signed the warrant, I think, an hour later

This was signed by

I think the cases fall clearly under


In that case the

10

and they said it was immaterial.

They cited General

11

Statutes 54-33a(c), which is now (f), which says, The

12

inadvertent failure of the issuing judge or judge,

13

trial referee, to state on the warrant the time of

14

its issuance shall not in and of itself invalidate

15

the warrant.

16

error, Your Honor.

17

that that warrant, by multiple parties, that warrant

18

was signed on August 29th and Judge Mullarkey signed

19

it on August 29th and executed the same day.

20

think the State has proved amply that the scriveners

21

error had no impact on the constitutionality of the

22

risk warrant.

This is clearly a simple a scrivener's


We have uncontradicted testimony

So I

23

THE COURT:

Thank you.

24

All right.

With regard to the fact that Judge

25

Mullarkey indicated when he signed the warrant that

26

he was doing so on August 28th the Court will find

27

that that is a mere technical defect, one that can be

161
1

referred to as a scriveners error, which is

insufficient to invalidate the warrant.

making that conclusion that our Supreme Court in

Thompson at 307, did state and I quote, mere

technical defects are insufficient to invalidate an

otherwise valid search warrant.

Ill note in

Ill note as well that also in Thompson, which

involves the time of a warrant signing rather than

its date, the Court noted that the Fourth Amendment

10

does not in and of itself mandate that the time

11

appear on the warrant itself, all the Fourth

12

Amendment requires is the neutral magistrate execute

13

it, that there is probable cause within it, and that

14

the items be particularly described.

15

Thompson states, and I quote, the limits -- strike

16

that -- with those being the only three requirements

17

the date and time is not a constitutional

18

requirement.

19

Our court in

Moreover, I point out that this warrant issued

20

under the authority of 29-38c.

29-38c, unlike the

21

regular search warrant statute, 54-33a, does not have

22

within its language a date and time requirement.

23

note that 54-33a, which is the general search warrant

24

statute was amended by Public Act 2000-31 to include

25

a requirement that the warrant state the date and

26

time of its issuance.

27

have a date and time requirement, but the legislature

Prior to 2000, 54-33a did not

162
1

amended 54-33a in 2000.

In 2000 the risk statute,

29-38c was not amended.

The risk statute went into

effect in 1999, so it was on the books when the

legislature decided to put a date and time

requirement onto 54-33a, they did not add such a

requirement to 29-38c.

violation either in the -- in what we now have before

the Court.

So there's no statutory

So finally, I think the nature of this mistake

10

is such that it should not result in the application

11

of the exclusionary rule or bring into question the

12

validity of the warrant and let me explain what I

13

mean by that.

14

of the warrant at 10:51 p.m.

15

signing this at 10:51 p.m.

16

submitted at the hearing was in an attempt to show

17

that the judge was wrong and it was really 9:51 when

18

he signed the warrant.

19

was that the warrant was executed after 9:51 but

20

before 10:51.

21

warrant until 10:51 then the police executed the

22

warrant -- or the warrant wasnt effective when the

23

police did the search, so that was important.

24

the Supreme Court in Thompson said based on the

25

evidence at the hearing this was clearly a

26

scriveners error and a technical defect that the

27

court could resolve on the basis of extrinsic

In Thompson the judge had put the time


The judge said Im

The evidence that was

The reason that was important

So if the judge had not signed that

But

163
1
2

evidence.
There is no risk here that this warrant was not

in in effect when it was executed by the police.

Because Judge Mullarkeys mistake says he signed it a

day earlier.

concern if Judge Mullarkey had said he signed this on

August 30th, which would mean he hadnt signed it as

of the date that the warrant was executed.

Mullarkey says he signed on the 28th.

I suppose this would be a greater

But Judge

So thats one

10

reason this doesn't warrant a finding of suppression.

11

The other important case is Rosario, which is at

12

238 Conn. at 380.

13

a scriveners error, there was the possibility that

14

the evidence was stale that was contained in the

15

affidavit because one of the affiants put down that

16

he had received information in January of 1992 and he

17

was applying for a search warrant in January 1993.

18

The State's claim in that case was that the reference

19

to 1992 that appeared in the affidavit was wrong and

20

it was a scriveners error because it really should

21

have said 93.

22

the evidence was tale, but once again the Supreme

23

Court in Rosario said this is a technical defect, a

24

scriveners error, and it does not warrant a

25

suppression of the evidence seized.

26
27

In Rosario, which also is found as

But the claim in that case was that

So because of Thompson, because of Rosario,


because of the specific language of 29-38c, because

164
1

of our law that technical defects are insufficient to

invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant, the

motion to suppress, which is based on the claim that

theres an incorrect date, is denied.

concluding that there is sufficient proof that this

was a technical defect or scriveners error.

The Court

Now turning, Attorney Baird, if you care to

comment on the flaw on the warrant on Page 4 in

support of your motion.

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

There were two affiants to the

11

August 29th, 2014 warrant, Trooper Katrenya and

12

Trooper DeJesus.

13

DeJesus noticed on Page 4 of the warrant that an

14

individual and information not related to Mr.

15

Taupiers case was referenced under the section

16

allowing them to search, quote, for the property

17

described in the foregoing affidavit and application

18

to wit colon.

19

On September 2nd of 2014 Trooper

When Trooper DeJesus noticed that the testimony

20

showed that he took it to Sergeant Medina who

21

immediately blacked it out and added information,

22

Edward F. Taupier date of birth, he then singed it,

23

excuse me, initialed it and put his badge number.

24

did not date it, so there is no way to know from the

25

warrant when that change was made.

26

it subsequently would not know when that change was

27

made.

He

Anyone looking at

Not only did he make the change but he did not

165
1

inform the other affiant to the warrant, Trooper

Katrenya, that a change was being made to a warrant

that had been signed by the trooper under oath before

a judge.

had not even seen the change and what had been done

to something that he had sworn to under oath until he

appeared in court today.

8
9

And in fact, it appears Trooper Katrenya

The change was made, and then only after the


change was made was the Assistant States Attorney

10

notified, and there was testimony from Trooper

11

DeJesus and Sergeant Medina that Attorney Melchiorre

12

was notified.

13

that he became aware at some point after that

14

Attorney Melchiorre had informed Judge Mullarkey.

15

The State hasn't presented evidence other than that

16

hearsay evidence that Judge Mullarkey knows about the

17

change, whether he did anything formally to adopt the

18

change or whether he condoned the change except I

19

believe from Sergeant Medinas testimony.

20

Medina testified that it was already done, the

21

warrant had already been executed, the change was

22

already made and apparently the original warrant,

23

theres no copy of it in existence.

24

we have a redacted, altered warrant without a date

25

noting when it was redacted or altered, but we also

26

have apparently the destruction of the original

27

warrant that was signed off by a judge and two

There was testimony by Sergeant Medina

Sergeant

So not only do

166
1

troopers under oath as to the contents. Furthermore,

the change made by Sergeant Medina was not made under

oath and was sworn to before any judge.

With regard to that redaction and change, the

Court has already read into the record today the

clear case law that scriveners errors do not affect

the validity of a warrant.

a state trooper, he testified, for 18 years.

this was a mere scriveners error what would be the

Sergeant Medina has been


So if

10

reason for redacting it and adding new language when

11

according to case law cited by the State and adopted

12

by our Appellate and Supreme Courts, scriveners

13

errors dont matter, that shows that this did matter,

14

it was important enough to matter that a change was

15

made, it was initialed and there was no date because

16

if there had been a date of 9/2/2014 everyone who saw

17

this warrant would have immediately alerted to that

18

and known there was something wrong.

19

warrant that has a judges date of 8/28 and troopers

20

Dates of 8/29 with changes in it that were made on

21

9/2 of 2014, is our position cannot be valid.

22

that addresses simply the date -- excuse me, the

23

redaction and addition on Page 4.

24

Because a

And

I also would note with regard to other errors in

25

this warrant that Ive already made the argument at

26

some point errors, no matter seemingly

27

inconsequential alone, add up at some point.

On Page

167
1

5 of Exhibit 1, again Trooper DeJesus gave a copy of

the warrant to the Hartford State's Attorney's

Office, the person named therein on 9/2/2014, which

is inexplicable.

explained it, whatever kind of error that is cannot

be explained, its not a scriveners error though,

its a return on a warrant that should have gone to

Mr. Taupier because it was his property that was

seized not the Hartford States Attorneys Office

10
11

I dont -- its -- Im not sure he

property.
THE COURT:

Let me ask you this, I don't

12

disagree with you that return of the warrant to the

13

Hartford State's Attorneys Office was not all that

14

well explained.

15

that would support your argument that a flawed return

16

would warrant the suppression of the evidence, if one

17

is to assume its a valid warrant in the first

18

instance?

19

a claim that I havent heard you on, but Ill hear

20

you now if youd like, that the defendant wasn't

21

given a copy of the warrant at the time of its

22

execution, because the Court's research has failed to

23

uncover any law that supports the application of the

24

exclusionary rule to what are largely ministerial

25

requirements that are statutorily and not

26

constitutionally based.

27

warrant be returned to the court with reasonable

But are you aware of any case law

And that goes hand in hand, I think, with

Specifically, that the

168
1

promptness and that the subject of the warrant be

given a copy.

that leads to suppression, and thats something that

other courts have noted in their decisions.

care to comment on that?

But I dont find anything that says

ATTY. BAIRD:

Do you

The case law with regard to search

and seizure warrants and the ministerial aspects of

them that may not require exclusion of evidence are

different from the civil firearms seizure warrant

10

that was executed on August 29th at Mr. Taupiers

11

home.

12

under 29-38c, which has certain specific statutory

13

requirements.

14

owns the firearms and ammunition be provided a copy

15

of the warrant and that it be returned to court, I

16

believe, I believe the statute says within 48 hours,

17

which obviously wasnt complied with here either

18

because it wasnt returned to court until apparently

19

September 9th, two days before the risk warrant

20

hearing that was scheduled for 14 days out or

21

approximately 14 days out.

22

The authority to execute that warrant falls

One of which is that the person who

The civil confiscation of firearms is implicated

23

by the Second Amendment, it cant help but be.

This

24

law, Your Honor is correct, was passed in 1999 under

25

Public Act 99-212 and the hearing testimony that

26

preceded in the legislature at that time primarily by

27

Representative Lawlor, Representative San Angelo,

169
1

assured representatives like Tulisano, Representative

Tulisano, that the provisions of 29-38c would be

interpreted strictly because of the rights

implicated, specifically going into somebodys home

on a civil matter and seizing firearms because

allegedly theyre in imminent danger to themselves or

someone else.

whatsoever in a risk warrant.

No criminal allegations involved

These firearms were not seized in this civil

10

action, CV14-54, for any -- had no relation to any

11

criminal allegations, otherwise there would have been

12

a search and seizure warrant but there wasnt, this

13

was a civil action.

14

212 the United States Supreme Court in Heller,

15

District of Columbia v. Heller, applied the Second

16

Amendment to individuals and in 2010 that was

17

incorporated to the states through McDonald v. City

18

of Chicago as an individual right to the people in

19

the state, so that when these state troopers went

20

into Mr. Taupiers home on August 29th with a civil

21

warrant to seize his firearms the Second Amendment

22

was implicated, the statutory protections of 29-38c

23

were implemented and because of those concerns the

24

wiggle room that apparently is given in search and

25

seizure warrants to allow scriveners errors and

26

ministerial mistakes does not apply to a risk

27

warrant.

And subsequent to Public Act 99-

170
1

And so I argue that failing to give a copy of it

to Mr. Taupier so that he could adequately prepare

for the hearing that was to occur in 14 days, because

thats really the only reason to give somebody notice

to a certain extent in a risk warrant civil action is

to allow the person due process, notice and

opportunity to be heard, to adequately represent at a

risk warrant hearing that the firearms should be

returned, and that's why a return in a risk warrant

10

goes -- the import of a return in a risk warrant goes

11

above and beyond any search and seizure warrant

12

because there are no such concerns in a search and

13

seizure warrant necessarily, the items are seized as

14

evidence and theres no right to a hearing within 14

15

days for which someone has to prepare to attempt to

16

get their property back, its being held as evidence.

17

THE COURT:

Well, I don't disagree that the

18

failure to return the search warrant -- Im sorry,

19

the risk warrant could have a profound impact,

20

perhaps greater in the 29-38c context because if the

21

court does not become aware through the return of the

22

execution of the risk warrant and the seizure of guns

23

pursuant thereto, then the court may fail to schedule

24

the 14-day hearing in a timely manner as required.

25

But in this case I think it's not in dispute

26

that the defendant was afforded a hearing within the

27

14-day period, specifically the hearing date was

171
1

September 11th.

The defendant appeared on September

11th with counsel, which is within the 14 days of the

August 29th seizure.

the failure to return a risk warrant could end up

undermining its authority in the sense that 14 days

could pass, the defendant could say, I didnt have my

hearing within 14 days or the right to a hearing

within 14 days, therefore the warrants no good, I

see that.

So while I don't dispute that

But the failure to return it properly

10

where no prejudice arises to the defendant, it seems

11

to me is a situation where the case law does not

12

support the application of the exclusionary rule.

13

And my thinking is that the exclusionary rule would

14

not be appropriately applied either where the

15

defendant fails to receive a copy of it.

16

any reason that the failure to give a copy should be

17

countenance in a 54-33a warrant but lead to

18

suppression of the evidence seized in a 29-38c

19

warrant.

20

differences between the two warrants being so vast as

21

to justify the imposition of such an extraordinary

22

sanction like suppression.

23

I dont see

Differences, yes, but I don't see the

ATTY. BAIRD:

For example, in this case I

24

believe if the warrant was not returned to the clerk

25

until September 9th, the clerk couldn't have sent

26

notice to Mr. Taupier of the September 11th hearing

27

until at least September 9th, which provides less

172
1

than two days preparation for a hearing because Mr.

Taupier had no idea that any such hearing would be

taking place because he was never given a copy of the

risk warrant with the instructions that accompany the

risk warrant.

So if we go down this road, what would stop the

state police, or municipal police for that matter,

from returning a warrant on the 13th day and the

clerk sending out a notice that you need to come to a

10

hearing the next day and our position is, that does

11

not provide sufficient notice and opportunity to be

12

heard thats warranted when firearms and ammunition

13

are seized.

14

time frame for the return and thats why Mr. Taupier

15

should have been given a copy of the warrant because

16

at what point do warrants, that are the hallmark in

17

this country of the Fourth Amendment and peoples

18

right to be secure in their possessions, becomes so

19

riddled with mistakes because those mistakes are

20

allowed, contrary to statutory requirements, that the

21

warrant process becomes meaningless.

22

with all the mistakes in this case, in the risk

23

warrant crosses the line where the warrant process

24

became meaningless by all the mistakes, errors,

25

misrepresentations, redactions and alterations that

26

occurred.

27

Thats why the statute has a specific

And this case,

Somehow on September 29th, 2019 [sic] Trooper

173
1

DeJesus and Trooper Katrenya suddenly realized that

these firearms were evidence.

they had the e-mail in their possession and according

to Sergeant Medinas notations on Page 4 of 6 of

Exhibit 21 and in the affidavit -- excuse me, in

Paragraph 7 of Exhibit 1, it was well known to

Trooper DeJesus and Trooper Katreyna that the State

Police Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Database

showed that Mr. Taupier possessed a permit, that he

Somehow, even though

10

had 12 firearms registered to him including five

11

handguns, seven long barrel guns and 42 high-capacity

12

magazines.

13

So when Sergeant -- excuse me, Trooper Medina

14

[sic] and Trooper DeJesus prepared the risk warrant

15

on August 29th, 2014 they knew that Mr. Taupier had

16

guns and somehow -- and they had the e-mail alleged

17

to have been sent by Mr. Taupier referencing guns.

18

So how was it between August 29th, 2014 and September

19

19th, 2014 suddenly they realized that these guns

20

were evidence, because if they had contained

21

themselves to a search warrant instead of to a risk

22

warrant then they would have had to specify exactly

23

what was evidence of the crime in that house and

24

specifying all of the firearms that they were able to

25

seize under the risk warrant would have gone, its

26

our position, far and beyond or would not have met, I

27

should say, probable cause to search and seize all

174
1

the firearms.

there.

And so although -- well, Ill end it

THE COURT:

Well, Ill just ask you one more

question before I hear from Attorney Hans.

What

youre asking me to do is to accept that a 29-38c

risk warrant is sufficiently akin to a regular search

warrant so as to justify the application of the

exclusionary rule to violations, and yet to treat the

29-38c warrant differently in interpreting our prior

10

case law.

11

dont want me to apply the case law that sheds light

12

on when that remedy is deserving.

13

You want the benefit of the remedy but you

ATTY. BAIRD:

When the risk warrant is used, as

14

it was in this case, to obtain evidence, which it

15

shouldnt be used for, its to be used to take

16

firearms out of the possession of persons who have

17

committed not necessarily a crime but who are

18

imminent danger to themselves or others.

19

you use the broad sweep of seizing all the firearms

20

under a risk warrant in someones possession and then

21

bootstrap that into a search warrant later on when

22

the evidence has not changed at all, when theres

23

nothing thats changed between August 29th and

24

September 19th to further the State's position that

25

these firearms are evidence of a crime, when a risk

26

warrant is used in that capacity to seize all the

27

firearms so that theyre in the States possession,

But when

175
1

so that they can get a search and seizure warrant to

seize them then as evidence and have all the firearms

in their possession not just the ones that they may

or may not have been able to get a search warrant on,

then in that situation, yes, the exclusionary rule

should be applied.

THE COURT:

By why are you -- on what basis are

you challenging the applicability of the risk warrant

statute to the circumstances that law enforcement

10

confronted on August 28th?

11

risk warrant is available where there is probable

12

cause to believe there has been recent threats by the

13

gun owner directed toward other persons.

14

comments cause me to think youre feeling that the

15

police improperly used 29-38c to circumvent the 54-

16

33a requirements because they wouldnt have been able

17

to get a regular search warrant.

18

with you that 29-38c didn't apply to what the police

19

knew.

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

The statute says that the

So your

But I don't agree

Well, Your Honor, we prepared to

21

go forward with a hearing on October 9th of 2014 to

22

present evidence at the risk warrant hearing that

23

this risk warrant should have never issued, that Mr.

24

Taupier was never an imminent danger to himself or

25

others, that the alleged threat preceded the risk

26

warrant by seven days in time and is that recent or

27

is it not recent, but we were not provided that

176
1

opportunity because at the last minute the State

decided not to go forward on the risk warrant

hearing.

THE COURT:

I realize that there was never a

hearing on the 29-38, but the question that I'm now

addressing is, should the police at the trial on

these charges be able to -- or should the State,

rather, be able to introduce evidence as to the

discovery of the guns in Mr. Taupiers house.

For me

10

to resolve that question requires me to decide

11

whether or not the police were legitimately in the

12

home on August 29th.

13

had a hearing on it, but the question is, were the

14

police lawfully in Mr. Taupier's home on August 29th,

15

and thats why I am asking what it is about the --

16

and as Ive already indicated, I dont think you

17

dispute this, you have not challenged the fact

18

that -- well, do you challenge that 29-38c applied

19

here?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

So I realize you may not have

We were prepared to -- Attorney

21

Schoenhorn filed a motion in preparation for the

22

September 11th hearing challenging the jurisdiction

23

of the court.

24

and present testimony or respond to testimony with

25

regard to the risk warrant and an order was never

26

entered pursuant to the risk warrant statute.

27

Court is asking --

We prepared to argue on October 9th

So the

177
1

THE COURT:

And that testimony would have been

relevant to what, that you were prepared to offer on

the 9th of October?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, as we did with other motions

in this case we would have adopted the motion filed

by Attorney Schoenhorn --

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

jurisdiction because --

10

All right.

THE COURT:

-- challenging the courts

But when you say, challenging the

11

court's jurisdiction, what does that mean; what

12

precisely would your claim have been?

13

ATTY. BAIRD:

14

THE COURT:

15
16

That -Are you challenging the sufficiency

of the allegations in the warrant?


ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, one of them was a procedural

17

challenge that Mr. Taupier wasnt provided a copy of

18

the warrant.

19

THE COURT:

20

aired.

21

execution?

All right.

Well, that's being

You mean at the time of the warrants

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

Thats being considered.

But

24

was there also a challenge to the sufficiency of the

25

allegations contained in the warrant?

26
27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, there would have been no

challenge on October 9th to the redaction and the

178
1

additional writing on Page 4 of 6 --

THE COURT:

No.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Thats being litigated.

Right.

Because --

Whether or not that redaction and

the circumstances surrounding the change, if that in

the Courts view invalidates the warrant then that

means the police did not have any legitimate basis to

be upon Mr. Taupiers -- to be within Mr. Taupiers

home.

So if the failure to give a copy to him

10

invalidates retroactively the police authority to be

11

there, were covering that.

12

mistake that originally appeared in that warrant, on

13

the warrant itself, invalidated the warrant then the

14

police had no right to be there and therefore then it

15

would have to be suppressed.

16

of that.

If the police -- if the

Im not disputing any

17

What Im asking you, was there a further

18

challenge to the adequacy of this warrant separate

19

and apart from your claims that there was a redaction

20

and that there was a misdating and there was failure

21

to give a copy and that it wasnt returned properly?

22
23
24

ATTY. BAIRD:

Other than those procedural,

jurisdictional issues that the Court just listed, no.


THE COURT:

No.

All right.

Well, then that

25

brings us back to where I thought we were, and I

26

appreciate the fact that we had a chance just to

27

fully air that so that Im not missing any of your

179
1

claims.

extraordinary remedy of suppression as a result of

violations to 29-38c, where those same violations

would not warrant suppression if a regular search

warrant was similarly flawed?

You want the Court to invoke the

ATTY. BAIRD:

In addition, because similarly

flawed search and seizure warrants do not implicate

the right of the person to dispose of the contents as

they see fit.

For example, Mr. Taupier at any time

10

after August 29th up until September 19th could have

11

transferred each and every one of these items to a

12

federal firearms licensee or another eligible person,

13

and the State -- he could have distributed them all

14

over the place and transferred them because thats

15

his right under 29-38c.

16

seizure, at any time after the order entered after

17

hearing the person whos the subject may transfer the

18

firearms.

19

opportunity to be heard it also denied him the

20

opportunity to transfer these firearms out of the

21

State's possession, which he had every right to do,

22

and --

At any time after the

And so by denying him notice and an

23

THE COURT:

I understand your claim.

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I want to add something else

25

too because I dont want -- I want to be -- I want to

26

have candor with the Court.

27

THE COURT:

All right.

180
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

My position is, is that the seven

firearms seized from Mr. Satula are still subject to

being transferred out of the possession of the State

because theyre only being held under 29-38c and the

transfer form clearly, clearly contemplates that they

can be transferred and they werent the subject of

the September 19th, 2014 --

8
9

THE COURT:

Well, we can get to that, but I

suspect the States going to claim that that was a

10

voluntary surrender, and if that needs to be

11

litigated it will be, but rather than expanding our

12

field of inquiry I would like to try to see if we can

13

narrow it.

14

to cover, Attorney Baird, and I know Ive interrupted

15

you a few times, but I am trying to make sure I

16

understand the full extent of your claims, but have

17

you had adequate time to address the claims you've

18

advanced apart from the neutral magistrate claim in

19

your motion to suppress?

20
21

Have I given you an adequate opportunity

ATTY. BAIRD:

We didn't touch that much on the

address in the September 19th, 2014 --

22

THE COURT:

Im holding off on that as well.

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

Okay.
To the extent that I feel that I

25

need to be -- that youve reserved your right on that

26

as well.

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Then Im fine.

Thank you.

181
1

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Attorney Hans.

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Your Honor, if I may be

excused?

theres any change in the status.

6
7

The clerk has my contact information if

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we have a change Ill

let you know first thing tomorrow.

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Thank you.

10

Attorney Hans.

11

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

First I just want

12

to point out to the Court that the State is not aware

13

of any cases on cumulative error or compounding error

14

to render -- especially regarding technical

15

violations such as date or the wrong name or a

16

mistake in address, cumulative error, Im not aware

17

of any cases that render suppression as the remedy

18

for cumulative error in a warrant.

19

believe counsel has cited any cases on the issue.

20

And I don't

Talking about the redacted name of Page 4 of the

21

risk warrant, I just want to point out to the Court

22

that, you know, Edward Taupier's name is all over

23

this warrant, prominently displayed in at least half

24

a dozen places, Your Honor, three times in big, bold

25

letters with his DOB and his resident address.

26

am arguing that the redaction of a left over, modern

27

day computerized scriveners error is what happened

So I

182
1

here in this case.

Now, granted it happened after the warrant was

executed and signed by the judge, by the case that I

cited to the Court, United States v. Hang Le-Thy

Tran, 433 F.3d, 472, its a 2006 case, Sixth Circuit

case, its pretty much spot on, Your Honor.

know that the Sixth Circuit is only persuasive to us

and not controlling, but in that case they had the

wrong street address and after the warrant was

And I

10

executed and signed by the judge they went back and

11

changed it.

12

authority or reason to invalidate the entire warrant

13

because of the officers mistake, there was no bad

14

faith, deception or prejudice as a result, the

15

officer simple tried to correct a minor error and did

16

not know that the document had now become a judicial

17

matter, and thats at Pages 480 and 481 of the Tran

18

case.

19

And they said, you know what, we find no

Well, Your Honor, thats exactly what occurred

20

here.

Everybody knows that Edward Taupier was the

21

subject of the risk warrant; everybody knows his name

22

appeared in at least a half a dozen times.

23

at Paragraph 7 of that risk warrant, it says that

24

hes the owner or that he has permits with the guns,

25

and so when Judge Mullarkey looked at the original

26

warrant and it had the other persons name, it says

27

you can seize any and all firearms in that residence.

You look

183
1

Judge Mullarkey was well within his right, even if it

had another persons name, Your Honor, I submit to

you, to seize those warrants [sic], because all the

other surrounding circumstances showed that he was at

risk.

there, they could have had rifle permits or pistol

permits, its of no moment, it didn't adversely

affect the probable cause.

So the fact that somebody else's name was in

So I do see it as along the lines of scriveners

10

error, albeit post execution of the warrant, but

11

wheres the harm, Your Honor, what did the officer

12

gain by it, what was the advantage of it, none.

13

simply corrected a technical error as he does in

14

police reports all the time.

15

Sergeant Medinas testimony that he was considering

16

it as a regular police report, he was wrong in that

17

and he admitted that and said, hey, it was a judicial

18

matter so thats why I alerted Vicki Melchiorre and

19

Vicki Melchiorre subsequently alerted Judge

20

Mullarkey.

21

is very much on point, its a good case for the State

22

to say that this was a mere technical error, doesnt

23

warrant suppression of the evidence.

24

He

I think it appears from

So I think, you know, that the Tran case

I want to talk a little bit about 29-38c hearing

25

requirements.

Mr. Taupier got his 14-day hearing.

26

He was adequately represented by counsel; Jon

27

Schoenhorn even had time to brief it, Your Honor.

184
1

had to file a lengthy response to his objection for

lack of jurisdiction and the other technicalities he

asserted, so was fully represented by competent

counsel.

well, you know what, I put the states attorneys

office on the notice on the return because I knew

hed get the materials at arraignment.

to, Your Honor, that I dont know when Attorney

Schoenhorn got the materials, but he got them in

And if you remember Trooper DeJesus said,

And I submit

10

ample time to fully litigate and prepare for that

11

warrant.

12

this case, he was fully represented by counsel who

13

filed a great brief and was fully prepared to go

14

forward on the risk hearing.

15

process violation.

16

So what due process violations occurred in

So there is no due

I also want to address the issue of the Second

17

Amendment.

And the risk case is Benjamin v. Bailey,

18

234 Conn. 455 at 467, its a 1995 case says, the

19

constitutional right to bear arms is not infringed by

20

reasonable regulation by the state and the exercise

21

of its police power to protect the health, safety and

22

morals of the citizenry.

23

warrant is, Your Honor.

24

finding that because he made threats concerning Judge

25

Bozzuto and alluded to shooting into her master

26

bedroom window with a high-powered rifle from an area

27

of concealment, that he posed a risk to the health or

Well, thats what a risk


Theres a probable cause

185
1

safety of others.

any way undermines the Second Amendment and it

doesnt undermine the validity of the warrant.

So I dont think that finding in

I would submit that the failure to leave a copy

of the warrant is truly ministerial in nature, Your

Honor.

that he fully informed the defendant before they

executed the warrant that this is what they were

doing.

And thats because Trooper DeJesus testified

Sir, were going in, were going to seize

10

firearms from your residence, there was no surprise,

11

he was alerted of the nature of the warrant.

12

think I cited a Superior Court case on the issue of

13

it being ministerial, but theres also a -- State v.

14

Baba, 2002 Westlaw 31440791, search is generally not

15

invalidated by a non-prejudicial failure to displace,

16

serve or leave a copy of the warrant of the

17

affidavit, and thats a quote from Baba.

18

So I

Theres also a 6th Circuit case, Frisby v.

19

United States, 79 F.2d, 29 at Page 77, failure to

20

deliver a copy of the warrant is a ministerial action

21

and doesn't give rise to suppression absent bad faith

22

or prejudice to the defendant.

23

there was no showing or no evidence that there was

24

any bad faith conduct on the part of the troopers.

25

So I don't think theres any prejudice whatsoever

26

from the failure to leave a copy of the warrant, no

27

prejudice whatsoever regarding his due process rights

And, Your Honor,

186
1

on the ability to litigate the return of those

weapons.

And the State disagrees in one major point,

Your Honor, on when he could have gotten those guns

back and transferred them to a third party.

if you read the statute, 29-38c, you can get those

guns back after the 14-day hearing.

you can just willy nilly the day of say, oh, Im

going to turn them over to a third party.

I think

I dont think

I could be

10

wrong on my statutory interpretation but I think it

11

says after the 14-day hearing.

12

And regarding the issues of subject matter

13

jurisdiction in my former brief on the motion to

14

dismiss I cited the In re: Addie May Nesbitt case, I

15

think there is certainly subject and personal

16

jurisdiction to litigate the firearms seizure.

17

you know, is a situation where there were some

18

mistakes made in the case, they don't render

19

suppression, they dont warrant -- render exclusion

20

of this evidence, these were technical violations not

21

of constitutional magnitude.

22

the Court to not suppress any of the firearms that

23

were seized.

24

This,

So the State would urge

I dont know if you want me to go into the issue

25

of independent source doctrine on the 9/19 warrant,

26

but even if you were throw out the whole risk

27

warrant, its the States position under the

187
1

independent source doctrine line of cases that that

later warrant which was signed with full probable

cause, even if you take out all the risk warrant

stuff, that would be an independent basis for

upholding the legitimacy and the validity of entering

those firearms.

THE COURT:

Well, I think well hold off on the

independent source doctrine because Im sure Attorney

Baird will have some thoughts on that.

10
11
12
13

ATTY. BAIRD:

I do have a couple points of

clarification.
THE COURT:

On independent source or on the

other areas?

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

15

THE COURT:

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

On the other areas.

Other areas.

Go ahead.

Just first of all, with regard to

17

Mr. Taupier's ability to transfer the firearms prior

18

to the 14-day hearing this has been litigated, it was

19

litigated before Judge Hadden in a case involving the

20

Berlin Police Department where firearms were in fact

21

transferred prior to the 14-day hearing.

22

position that 29-38c would have allowed that, in fact

23

that has been litigated in the State.

24

So its our

I would as the Court to take judicial notice of

25

an e-mail that the clerk's office did send out to Mr.

26

Taupiers counsel on September 9th, 2014, providing

27

counsel with a copy of the warrant, the risk warrant.

188
1

Attorney Melchiorre never provided it to anyone and,

in fact, there was testimony that indicated she may

not of even had a copy of the risk warrant because

only one copy apparently, according to Trooper

DeJesus, was ever made.

Attorney Schoenhorn when he came on September 11th,

apparently by the States representation, fully

prepared to move forward.

that Attorney Schoenhorn in looking at Page 4 of 6 of

I did hear -- one thing that

As I can assert at least

10

the risk warrant that he had in his possession at

11

that time had no idea that that redaction and writing

12

was made subsequent to the issuance and execution of

13

the search warrant, because there arent many counsel

14

who would even imagine such a thing would happen in

15

our courts as participated by the prosecutors office

16

and state police officers that a warrant would be

17

changed, redacted after its issuance and execution

18

without even a date put on it, so I guarantee from my

19

experience that Jon Schoenhorn had no idea that that

20

had in fact occurred and if he would have known that

21

would have occurred he certainly would have addressed

22

that vigorously at the time.

23

You know, the argument wheres the harm, Your

24

Honor, well, the harm is the integrity of the system,

25

number one.

26

often hear from defendants than prosecutors who say,

27

well, I violated the harm, whats the big deal, you

Wheres the harm is something we more

189
1

know, I didnt -- nobody was hurt, let me off, give

me a nolle, dismiss it, whatever, you know, thats

something youd expect to hear from defendants not a

representative of the State.

THE COURT:

All right.

Well, heres what I

propose we do.

Id like to consider some of the

arguments that youve advanced.

position to review the claim regarding the neutral

magistrate requirement, and I also want to hear from

I also want to be in

10

both of you concerning the admissibility from an

11

evidentiary standpoint of the guns, magazines and

12

ammunition seized.

13

issues that need to be considered as well.

14

Because I think that presents

So I want both of you to be ready tomorrow

15

morning when we start again at 9:30 to address the

16

admission of these guns, ammunition and magazines at

17

trial.

18

magistrate claim.

19

that have been attached to Attorney Bairds memo, Im

20

seeing those for the first time now.

21

have all this heard we will proceed in accordance

22

with my ruling.

23

Also be ready, please, to address the neutral


I will read over the transcripts

And after we

If the Court rules, and I feel Ill be in a

24

position to do so tomorrow morning, then the next

25

step is to pick the jury.

26

Wednesday that Attorney Baird brought up was

27

something that was kind of novel, but it was, Id

Now, one of the things on

190
1

like to know how Your Honor -- well, this part wasnt

novel -- because the claim was, Id like to know how

Your Honors going to rule on these two important

issues, that is the admission of the guns and also

the admission of the videotaping.

other thing I want to hear from you on, because we

haven't discussed yet the videotaping, but I want to

hear argument on that.

So thats the

And we'll go from there.

But the defendant, I think, will be given the

10

right to pick the jury after he knows what my rulings

11

are going to be on these in limine issues, and Im

12

not going to make the defendant elect the court trial

13

now or never.

14

law that sets a time by which a defendant has to

15

elect a court trial.

16

empaneled and jeopardys attached he cant -- I dont

17

think Im going to let him change his mind then, but

18

I think during the selection of the jury the

19

defendant may still have the right to do that.

20

Unless somebody presents me with something that says,

21

and I couldnt find it, that a defendant must make an

22

election before the first juror is picked, I cant

23

find that.

24

I can't find anything, frankly, in the

ATTY. BAIRD:

Now, once we have the jury

I just want to confirm that the

25

Court got -- I did write a brief on this, its

26

probably about seven or eight pages, I think.

27

wanted to confirm the Court received it.

I just

191
1

THE COURT:

On the issue of the election?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

same as the Court's.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

6
7

The conclusions were the

Oh, was it?


Right.

Okay.

But I just wanted to let

you know I wrote a brief.


THE COURT:

I just want the record to show I

didnt read it before I said what I said.

But so

were you asking then for the right to do, kind of,

10

what Ive indicated that I might let you do anyway,

11

which is to start -- preserve the defendants right

12

to the jury trial and not waive it until some point

13

in time -- I mean, you cant change your election

14

once the jury -- do you agree with that, once the

15

jury is empaneled and we have jeopardy attached

16

that --

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

But up until that point?


Theres nothing that prohibits it.

Yeah.

I can't find --

Its up to the court's discretion,

22

and a lot of that discretion is based on whether its

23

going to delay things or not.

24

THE COURT:

Well, I mean, I dont see it being a

25

significant delay and, frankly, if you had not been

26

candid I suspect if you just said, we want a jury

27

trial and you pick the jurors and then one day you

192
1

came in and said, you know what my client changed his

mind, I think Id be hard pressed to say too late.

So what Im hoping we do, we resolve all this in

limine -- all the in limine motions and then

either -- and well probably start picking the jury

on Wednesday, thats the way Im looking at it.

to remind you, Thursday Im not available Thursday

the 12th, so well pick, if we -- because no matter

how I rule on these motions were still going to have

10

a trial.

11

dont know how long youll take and then well start

12

evidence next week.

13

So well pick on Wednesday and Friday.

Just

ATTY. BAIRD:

I just wanted to bring up one

14

conflict and Im just going to place it on the record

15

to request --

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

Go ahead.
-- yes, no, obviously it doesnt

matter.

19

THE COURT:

Tell me what it is.

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

March 11, Wednesday, the judiciary

21

committee is hearing a lot of testimony about various

22

bills and I've been asked by certain representatives

23

to come and testify.

24

but I did say I would ask.

25

THE COURT:

I told them that Im on trial,

Do you know what time that would be?

26

Is that one of those things where you have to sign up

27

and if youre not there

193
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

I dont think so.

I may be able

to be taken in priority.

because Im not -- Im being invited Im just not a

member of the public.

THE COURT:

6
7

Its starts at 10:30,

Ill try to accommodate you, thats

what Ill do.


Now, I know that -- and Im doing that because

Attorney Hans may report that she needs to see

somebody about her arm.

10

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

Its in Essex and

11

its a tentative appointment at eight a.m. Thursday,

12

so it doesnt conflict, its the 12.

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

THE COURT:

16

Thursday, okay.
Yep.
Can you wait; is that the first you

could get?

17

ATTY. HANS:

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. HANS:

20

THE COURT:

Yeah, yeah.
Is it really the first you can get?
Thats what they gave me, so.
Well, okay.

Well, Attorney Baird,

21

why dont you do this, maybe you can find out by

22

tomorrow, sort of, what time you could testify.

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

I will.
If you tell me you can be taken

25

first, but I want this case to move as smoothly as we

26

can, people will have conflicts, if we cant start --

27

youre hearing is Wednesday?

194
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
Okay.

All right.

Well, if we have

to wait until Friday we will to start picking the

jury.

extent I can.

Were going to accommodate everybody to the

ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, just on the issue

of when the defendant can elect a bench trial over a

jury trial.

were going to have to fly in from California, so it

I do have one out of state witness that

10

is an inconvenience to the People of the State of

11

Connecticut.

12

Ill just speculate that jury selection will take at

13

least one day.

I think I can make accommodations.

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. HANS:

16

Oh, yeah.
But if we do go bench trial then I

will ask for that one day --

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. HANS:

Fine.
-- because Im going to have to

19

marshal my evidence.

20

THE COURT:

Even if we go bench trial then

21

theres greater flexibility anyway in the scheduling

22

of witnesses.

23

that.

24

Well figure it out.

Im confident of

So its 4:20, we had a full day today.

Really

25

only the briefest of breaks and Ill see everybody

26

tomorrow morning at 9:30.

27

Yes.

195
1

ATTY. HANS:

I apologize, Your Honor.

There is

one discovery issue.

given discovery of the States witness list and I

don't have a defense witness list in order to prepare

cross-examination questions, so regardless of a bench

trial or a jury trial I may have to ask for

additional time to prepare because I have no idea

what witnesses are being called.

9
10
11

THE COURT:

I had filed with the court and

When do you think youll have your

witness list, Attorney Baird?


ATTY. BAIRD:

I was somewhat waiting for the

12

resolution of these two motions, but Ill get a

13

draft -- Ill get one out tomorrow.

14

THE COURT:

Thank you.

All right.

Maybe we

15

can -- youll have that by tomorrow, Attorney Baird,

16

thank you.

17

And I suspect I will have ruled on everything

18

thats outstanding before lunch tomorrow.

19

my sense of where were heading, thatll give

20

everybody amply time to do their arguments.

21

get them ready for tomorrow.

22

pleasant evening and well start tomorrow at 9:30.

23

Recess or adjourn.

24
25
26
27

So thats

So lets

Everybody have a

(Proceedings end at 4:22 p.m.)

MMX-CR14-0675616T

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLESEX

V.

AT MIDDLETOWN,
CONNECTICUT

EDWARD F. TAUPIER

MARCH 9, 2015

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and


correct transcription of the audio recording of the abovereferenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of
Middlesex, Middletown, Connecticut, before the Honorable David P.
Gold, Judge, on the 9th day of March 2015.
Dated this 24th day of March 2015 in Middletown,
Connecticut.

_____________________________
Dana Wilson
Court Recording Monitor

197

INDEX

Witness

Page

Daniel DeJesus
Direct Examination by Attorney Hans ---------Cross-Examination by Attorney Baird ---------Redirect Examination by Attorney Hans -------Recross-Examination by Attorney Baird -------Redirect Examination by Attorney Hans --------

26
60
91
92
93

Raphael Medina
Direct Examination by Attorney Hans ---------- 95
Cross-Examination by Attorney Baird ---------- 105
Ralph Soda
Direct Examination by Attorney Hans ---------Cross-Examination by Attorney Baird ---------Redirect Examination by Attorney Hans -------Recross-Examination by Attorney Baird --------

114
118
119
120

Jennilee Fratellenico
Direct Examination by Attorney Baird --------- 123
Cross-Examination by Attorney Hans ----------- 125
Andrew Katrenya
Direct Examination by Attorney Baird --------- 129

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B

MMX-CR14-0675616T

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLESEX

AT MIDDLETOWN,
CONNECTICUT

MARCH 10, 2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

V.
EDWARD F. TAUPIER

Suppression Hearing Arguments and Courts Decision

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID P. GOLD, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S :
Representing the State:
ATTORNEY BRENDA HANS
Assistant States Attorney
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

Representing the Defendant:


ATTORNEY RACHEL M. BAIRD
3 Church Street
Suite 3B
Torrington, CT 06790-5247

Recorded & Transcribed By:


Dana Wilson
Court Recording Monitor
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

1
1
2

(Proceedings begin at 9:45 a.m.)


THE COURT:

Good morning.

3
4

(Pause)
THE COURT:

All right.

Well, lets continue

then with our hearing.

Did the lawyers want to be

heard any further concerning the information that

appears within the four corners of the warrant that

is claimed to be in error or wish to be heard any

further about the manner in which the warrant was

10

served on Mr. Taupier and later returned to the court

11

or have both sides had an adequate opportunity to

12

place their opinions and legal arguments on the

13

record?

14

Attorney Baird?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

The Court had asked me yesterday

16

if there had been any prejudice that resulted from

17

Mr. Taupiers not being heard --

18

THE COURT:

On September 11th?

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

21

ATTORNEY BAIRD:

-- on the risk warrant.

On September 11th?
On September 11th.

And I

22

responded with a couple of things, one of them being

23

that Attorney Schoenhorn would have had no way of

24

knowing on the 11th that there had been a redaction

25

and an addition in the warrant.

26

if the hearing had gone forward on the 11th, and this

27

has not been brought up previously, but Your Honor

Another thing, that

2
1

just mentioned the four corners of the warrant, the

risk warrant alleges that theres probable cause to

believe that Mr. Taupier, the above named person,

possessed one or more firearms.

subscribed on August 29th.

And that was

Its my understanding that the State's position

at arraignment on September 2nd was that there had

been a family court order in place that Mr. Taupier,

in the year 2013, divest himself of those firearms.

10

And then in fact a document was filed in court, in

11

family court, indicated that he had in fact

12

transferred them or provided them to Mr. Satula to

13

get them out of the house as required by the family

14

court.

15

THE COURT:

Well, that was -- I think its fair

16

to say that your client entered into an agreement

17

whereby he pledged to do that.

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

19

THE COURT:

Yes.
I don't know whether or not that was

20

effectuated.

21

firearms during the pendency of the family court

22

proceeding.

23

He also agreed not to possess any other

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

And it was represented to

24

the family court that he in fact did so.

And on

25

August 29th when the troopers drafted the affidavit

26

they had no information that that had not in fact

27

occurred.

There had been no motion for contempt in

3
1

family court alleging that Mr. Taupier hadnt done

what was required of the court.

information provided by anybody that Mr. Taupier had

or obtained those firearms back from Mr. Satula.

within the four corners of the warrant there is no

paragraph that references the family court agreement

and order that the firearms be transferred out of Mr.

Taupiers home and that he not possess firearms.

Theres nothing in the warrant indicated that there

There had been no

And

10

had been any motion for contempt filed because Mr.

11

Taupier had not abided by that agreement.

12

information in the warrant indicating that the

13

officers had no reason to believe that Mr. Taupier

14

wasnt in full compliance with the family court

15

order.

16

Theres no

And thats a material omission, Your Honor, and

17

I believe that on the 11th Mr. Schoenhorn would have

18

asked the officers what information they had that Mr.

19

Taupier had not been compliant with the family court

20

order and why they didn't include in the affidavit

21

for the judge that there was, in fact, a family court

22

order that he remove all his firearms from the home,

23

that there had been no contempt either asked for or

24

found with regard to that order, and that they had no

25

information that he, in fact, had firearms in his

26

house because as of record the firearms were ordered

27

out of his house and he had complied.

4
1

THE COURT:

Well, youre suggesting that -- so

you have some evidence that the police were aware of

the terms of that stipulation in the family court?

They indicate in Paragraph 6 that they made inquiry

through the Judicial Branch Website to determine that

Judge Bozzuto had presided over Mr. Taupiers

dissolution.

first of all, youre arguing something which by your

own admission you didn't raise.

But you seem to be arguing that --

We had the witnesses

10

here.

I repeatedly asked you whether there was any

11

challenge being raised to the probable cause or the

12

warrant itself, apart from the mistakes that have

13

been the subject of the hearing and you repeatedly

14

said no.

15

Now you seem to be raising some claim akin to a

16

Franks hearing that they left something out, but the

17

witnesses were here, both you subpoenaed -- or you

18

presented one of those witnesses, the State the

19

other, but you were given the opportunity to

20

question, and to question beyond the scope of direct,

21

frankly.

22

about the knowledge that the officers had, even if

23

one were to assume that the defendant had stipulated

24

to the surrender of his guns Im not confident that

25

that agreement to surrender the guns would have

26

precluded the use of a risk warrant.

27

someone who has multiple guns registered to him in

So now youre raising yet another issue

Frankly,

5
1

the course of the divorce agrees to turn them over,

Im not sure that law enforcement is, because of the

defendants own agreement, foreclosed from pursuing a

29-38c warrant.

But I guess thats beside the point.

Theres nothing before me which would allow me

to conclude that that was information known to the

police.

entirely fair conclusion, reading that the first that

the police officers, the first wind of any of this

And well, I dont know if this is an

10

that the police received was at 2:30 in the afternoon

11

on August 28th.

12

would be, I guess 8:48 p.m., they interviewed

13

Jennifer Verranault, one of the recipients of the e-

14

mail at issue.

15

referring to would be in a court file.

16

that the police would have been able to access that

17

file their first opportunity to do it would have be,

18

I guess, on the morning of the 29th.

19

that they used the Judicial Branch Website, which I

20

suspect would not have the contents of the

21

stipulation, I think one could conclude that they did

22

not leaf through what I suspect was a fairly

23

voluminous file in an effort to identify the

24

stipulation and then having identified it left it

25

out.

26
27

It indicates that at 20:45, which

So this information that you're


To the extent

But the fact

(Pause)
THE COURT:

So what is it that -- Im sorry.

If

6
1

you need a moment, go ahead.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

No.
No.

Go ahead, Your Honor.


So I guess what is it that --

is this a new claim that youre now raising, that

there is reason to believe that if they had indicated

that Mr. Taupier had agreed to turn over the

firearms, that the judge would not have been able to

find probable cause?

9
10

ATTY. BAIRD:
THE COURT:

If I could have a moment?

Yeah.

11
12
13

(Pause)
ATTY. BAIRD:

Ive argued at bond hearings in this matter --

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16
17
18
19

Well, my response to that is, as

Im sorry.

As you argued?

At hearings weve had on Mr.

Taupiers bond, conditions of release.


THE COURT:
bond.

Bond, okay.

I didnt hear the word

Yep.

ATTY. BAIRD:

The family court order on

20

September 2nd seemed to be incorporated into the

21

consideration of Mr. Taupier's bond and the fact that

22

he had allegedly violated that family court order.

23

THE COURT:

All right.

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

25

THE COURT:

I mean, that wasn't me.

No.
I guess youre referring to -- that

26

was, I think -- that must have been Judge Alexander

27

on the 2nd?

7
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Right.
All right.

So, I mean, I guess the

transcript exists.

to see it, but Ill accept that possibility.

ATTY. HANS:

I dont know if Ive had a chance

And, Your Honor, just to point out

to the Court, of course thats September 2nd, the

risk warrant is August 29th.

8
9

THE COURT:
point.

Yeah.

No.

I think thats a fair

I mean, its a little difficult for me to see

10

the relevance of what may have been known on the 2nd,

11

but.

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, the line I was drawing was

13

if it was important to the court on September 2nd in

14

considering conditions of release, then drawn from

15

that it would have been important to the court to

16

know about such an order in the risk warrant on

17

August 29th, both -- it was material on September 2nd

18

and our argument was it was material on August 29th.

19

THE COURT:

Well, yes.

Whether something is

20

material is -- can be material for the setting of the

21

bond.

22

argument that if the police, before applying for this

23

warrant, had called up Mr. Taupier and said, we're

24

investigating this threat, do you have any guns on

25

your house.

26

the police from utilizing the risk warrant because

27

the defendant said he didn't have any guns.

But what Im getting at is it seems to be your

And he said no that that would preclude

So

8
1

this -- it would seem a bizarre result that the

defendant by denying his possession of the guns would

have barred the police from effectuating entry

through a risk warrant.

that, but the fact that in this case I don't have any

evidence before me that on 8/29 when the police

applied for this warrant that they were aware of it,

nor am I persuaded at least in thinking about this

for the first time that the fact that there was a

The police may have included

10

family court stipulation from, I think, about 15 or

11

16 months earlier, it was sometime in mid 13, I

12

think, that that was entered.

13

certain that even that would have eliminated the

14

probable cause that arose from the fact that the

15

defendant was still the registered owner of 12

16

firearms, which included 5 handguns, 7 long barrels,

17

42 high-capacity magazines.

18

So thats my response.

So, I mean, Im not

But what are you asking

19

for in raising this?

20

as well as I enter my rulings on this then thats

21

what Ill do.

22

Ill make a note to cover that in my remarks so that

23

you have the issue, I guess, preserved.

24

If you want me to consider that

Ill address your claim about that and

ATTY. BAIRD:

So in response to the Courts

25

question about the risk warrant, Exhibit 1, any

26

further comments by counsel, that was my comment.

27

THE COURT:

That would be it.

Well, are you

9
1

asking for any -- other than asking me to consider

the fact that the defendant was prejudiced -- so this

is relevant to the question as to whether or not the

lack of a hearing on 9/11 worked prejudice to your

client --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.
-- such that -- to the extent that

prejudice is relevant in determining whether or not

there should be any invocation of the exclusionary

10

rule?

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

Exactly.

If he would have had the

12

opportunity to address that, it's too late now, these

13

firearms are, you know, in evidence.

14

have had the chance to address that on September

15

11th, and perhaps elicit information that that was a

16

material omission, that arguably may have affected

17

some judges, may not, may.

18

THE COURT:

If he would

Right, at that hearing.

So youre

19

saying that had there been a hearing on 9/11 -- so

20

the claim youre raising is really that had there

21

been a hearing on 9/11, this issue could have been

22

litigated and if resolved in your client's favor

23

would have resulted in the guns being returned on

24

9/11?

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

26

THE COURT:

27

Yes.
And therefore, not being at least so

readily available to the State such that the criminal

10
1

search warrant could just transfer them from one

office to another?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes, on September 19th.


Okay.

All right.

Im going to

cover that as well as I get through these issues.

Thank you, Attorney Baird.

7
8
9

Attorney Hans, anything that you havent argued


so far?
ATTY. HANS:

Well, just addressing the points

10

that Attorney Baird stated this morning, Your Honor.

11

If you recall, back on September 11th, 2014 when Jon

12

Schoenhorn was representing the defendant we didn't

13

call any witnesses as evidence because we did a lot

14

of in chambers discussion.

15

witnesses were called that day.

16

start the hearing.

17

called, not testimony elicited.

18

I marked one exhibit.

No

We did initiate and

But there were no witnesses

Subsequently after that the State withdrew the

19

risk warrant, which is the States option.

The State

20

is allowed to withdraw the risk warrant.

21

reason the State withdrew the risk warrant is because

22

the guns had been properly seized as evidence.

23

the interim, Attorney Baird, and I dont know perhaps

24

Attorney Mathers were hired by the defendant, but

25

theres no prejudice whatsoever to the defendant from

26

the September 11th, 2014 hearing because no evidence

27

was presented or witnesses on that day.

And the

And

In

11
1

subsequently the State exercised its option to

withdraw that risk warrant because it was the States

position that those firearms were lawfully seized as

crucial pieces of evidence or contraband in the

threatening case under a separate warrant dated 9/19,

States Exhibit 2, signed by Judge Diana.

think there's any prejudice to the defendant.

8
9

So I don't

I wanted to bring up also the issue of the


family court order, Your Honor.

If this is couched

10

as a Franks v. Delaware, I mean, the defendants

11

attorney has been exceptionally thorough in this

12

motion to suppress, its coming to us today now.

13

Theres no way that if the troopers had known that he

14

had a family court order to surrender the guns and

15

that he may have been in violation of that order,

16

which is what apparently came out on the September

17

2nd, 2014 bond hearing, thats not a Franks v.

18

Delaware issue, Your Honor, thats not a material

19

omission of fact that could be -- its not really

20

exculpatory, its more in the frame of inculpatory.

21

And the state elicited evidence from Trooper

22

DeJesus that he discovered from Attorney Melchiorre

23

of an existing family court order and that was after

24

the August 29th, 2014 issuance of States Exhibit 1.

25

So, I mean, I think there was evidence elicited and I

26

think if we can look at the transcript, I havent had

27

a chance to look at it because -- or have it played,

12
1

but that all occurred after the warrant had already

been signed and prepared.

Delaware issue, theres no bad faith on the police

officers, they put forth everything they had in the

very short time period they had after the 28th

receiving that e-mail.

So theres no Franks v.

THE COURT:

All right.

Thank you.

So that concludes the argument on the manner --

the language on the warrant that was later redacted,

10

that also includes the argument that the Court should

11

take steps to sanction the police for not providing a

12

copy to Mr. Taupier on August 29th.

13

been testimony involving the fact that the return of

14

the warrant was originally made to the Hartford

15

State's Attorney's Office and wasnt made properly to

16

the G.A. here in Middletown until, I believe, 9/9.

17
18
19

ATTY. HANS:

Theres also

Thats my understanding, Your

Honor.
THE COURT:

And we now have the Franks -- well,

20

theres actually -- I dont know if its properly

21

called a Franks claim.

22

advanced, as I understand it and please correct me if

23

Im wrong, Attorney Baird, is not so much a Franks

24

claim but rather that the cancellation or

25

postponement of the 9/11 hearing prevented your

26

client from litigating the circumstances surrounding

27

the execution of the warrant at a time when the guns

The claim that is now being

13
1

were not yet subject to the new search and seizure

warrant on 9/19, and thats offered by you as a

demonstration that there was prejudice.

Im to understand?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Is that what

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Then that

covered -- lets turn our attention next to the

argument made by the defense that Judge Mullarkey was

not a neutral and detached magistrate as required by

10

the Fourth Amendment.

11

Attorney Baird.

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

The case of State v. Edman came up

13

yesterday, 281 Conn. 444, its a 2007 State Supreme

14

Court case, and its a case that thoroughly reviews

15

the issue of the neutrality of a magistrate or a

16

judge in signing a warrant.

17

particular kind of warrant was a search and seizure

18

warrant.

19

magistrate and indicia of partiality.

20

how the magistrate needs to not only be neutral but

21

also detached.

22

Supreme Court cases that are cited throughout the

23

United States, my research shows, when this issue

24

arises, Edman also appears to be cited in a couple

25

other jurisdictions as a case that addresses this

26

issue.

27

And in Edman the

That case references conduct of the


It talks about

And in the case it references three

The three Supreme Court cases, Coolidge v. New

14
1

Hampshire from 1971, involved a state attorney

general who participated in an investigation and

later prosecuted a case, and in that case it was

found that that state attorney general was not

neutral when he signed the warrant.

Georgia, a 1977 case, the Supreme Court found that a

magistrate who was paid $5 for each warrant he signed

but not paid for warrants that he did not sign, was

not detached and neutral.

In Connally v.

And in Lo-Ji Sales

10

Incorporated v. New York, that involved a magistrate

11

who went with the police officers to an adult book

12

store, pointed out the books he felt were obscene.

13

The police officers then did a search warrant for the

14

seizure of those books and he signed the warrant.

15

In reviewing these cases and others, including

16

Edman, its my assertion that they involve a

17

different issue then is alleged in this case by Mr.

18

Taupier as regards Judge Mullarkey's neutrality.

19

its a more difficult case.

20

Coolidge and Lo-Ji Sales are easy cases.

21

more of a case where youre looking at expressions of

22

belief or expressions of opinion and drawing an

23

inference from them about objectively how it looks

24

when the person who made those expressions later

25

performs an act, its almost similar to a jury

26

instruction on intent, theres nothing really that

27

tangible about it, but you just need to draw from a

And

I mean, Connally,
This is

15
1
2

person's acts to know what the intent is.


And I liken this case more to a standard, for

example, when a nominee appears before the United

States Congress to be a justice of the United States

Supreme Court and they are questioned about previous

statements theyve made, articles theyve written and

things theyve done to see if they, once appointed,

can be fair and impartial in addressing those very

same issues.

I also equate it to perhaps when a

10

juror is being selected and they are asked about

11

various issues and theres a determination sometimes,

12

a challenge, to whether that juror can actually sit

13

on a case based on their expressed opinions about

14

certain matters that are involved in that case.

15

And so my argument that we have here, Your

16

Honor, is that we have Judge Mullarkey, who in July

17

of 2013 referenced an article I have summarized in an

18

attachment to my motion to suppress in this case as

19

an article that takes the position that the Second

20

Amendment does not apply to individuals and that

21

even -- that the Second Amendment doesnt apply to

22

individuals.

23

2008, prior to 2010, when arguable -- I mean,

24

arguably many judges held that in decisions, many

25

people in the public took that position, but once the

26

Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court made

27

their decision then at least insofar as judges who

Now, that article was written prior to

16
1

take an oath or agree to follow the Constitution, the

issue was no longer in doubt or up for, at least,

public discussion.

statements on the record that Your Honors aware of

and they are what they are, and they are what this

Court takes them to be.

mean.

8
9

And so what we have is these

So I wont argue what they

Unlike a nominee before the United States


Congress for United States Supreme Court, however, we

10

are not able to ask Judge Mullarkey anything about

11

these statements because the test that we are

12

applying is an objective test and without asking

13

Judge Mullarkey the questions, much like if congress

14

was not able to ask a nominee questions about

15

statements, were just left with the statements.

16

we cannot ask, well, when you signed this warrant on

17

August 29th, 2014 was it part of your consideration

18

that this is no big deal at all to go into somebodys

19

house and take their guns because he does not have

20

the right to have them anyway under the United

21

States Constitution, what is the big deal here.

22

that in his mind, we don't know, but it certainly

23

seems that if he were, for example, being questioned

24

as a potential juror in a case and there was

25

information that these statements have been made and

26

references made to the Professor Bogus article

27

then -- and the case involved firearms then certainly

And

Was

17
1

a judge would reasonably consider a challenge for

cause in the trial of such a case.

And so those two standards apply similarly in

determining whether Judge Mullarkey was a neutral

magistrate.

detached, he didnt know Mr. Taupier, he had no

relationship to Mr. Taupiers home or any of the

other parties, so were not arguing that he wasn't

detached from the circumstances.

Theres no evidence that he wasnt

What were arguing

10

is the wasn't neutral and objectively speaking, left

11

alone and not having any other information than what

12

we have, we can't overcome the objective appearance

13

of bias.

14

THE COURT:

Thank you.

15

Attorney Hans.

16

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, youve got a big

17

problem here.

18

This transcript was attached to a motion.

19

introduced as a full exhibit at trial.

20

What evidence do you have before you?

THE COURT:

It wasnt

Im not -- Im going to accept -- I

21

asked that it be provided.

22

not going to base it on that.

23

transcript excerpts that Attorney Baird gave me as

24

accurate statements or an accurate recording of what

25

statements were made during the course of that trial

26

in 2013.

27

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.

Im not going to -- Im
Im accepting the

Just to preserve the record,

18
1

the States objecting because they were not admitted

as evidentiary -- this is a suppression hearing where

you have testimony and exhibits, and I do object for

the record, Your Honor.

Additionally, when you look at those

transcripts, Your Honor, what do you see in them, you

see a reference to Annie Oakley, thats a personal

reference to Attorney Baird that has nothing to do

with the Second Amendment.

You look at whether or

10

not theres any testimony that he was -- that he

11

abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate, we dont

12

have any evidence of whatsoever.

13

occurred two years ago is not relevant to whether or

14

not this judge properly assumed his role in looking

15

at the four corners of the risk warrant.

16

warrant is not a Second Amendment issue case really,

17

Your Honor.

18

is, recent threats or acts of violence by such person

19

toward himself or others.

20

that, you know, I think that youre comparing apples

21

and oranges.

22
23

A case that

A risk

A risk warrant was -- the basis for it

So I don't really think

I did want to point out to the Court a case that


I have, State v. Montini and thats at --

24

THE COURT:

25

ATTY. HANS:

The Courts familiar with Montini.


-- 52 Conn. App. 682, 1999 at Page

26

85 and 86.

In that case the judge was a staunch

27

advocate for child rights and then he didn't recuse

19
1

himself because he sat on a child sexual abuse case.

So its very analogous to this case, if he -- if

shes saying that, you know, he cant be fair or he

cant be neutral because he doesnt like the Second

Amendment, then its the same thing as the Montini

case.

any credible evidence, except pure speculation that

he abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate.

looked at the four corners of the document, he

So I dont think that you have any evidence,

He

10

determined there was ample probable cause, because

11

there was, and he signed it.

12

neutral magistrate.

13

evidence that he abandoned his role and I ask that

14

you not consider that claim.

It was signed by a

You dont have any objective

15

THE COURT:

All right.

16

All right.

So that finishes the argument on the

17

Thank you.

neutral magistrate claim.

18

Attorney Baird, have we -- I know you have

19

reserved right to argue on the September 19th search

20

warrant, I havent heard you on that.

21

going to hold that issue in abeyance about what

22

impact of effect, if any, that later warrant may have

23

or not have on this case.

24

else out, as far as your suppression?

And Im still

But have I left anything

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

No.

26

THE COURT:

27

So let me hear from you both then on a somewhat

No.

I think weve covered it.

20
1

different issue.

And that is, assuming just for

purposes of argument at this time that the Court were

to deny the motion to suppress and find that the risk

warrant provided a valid basis for the police to

enter Mr. Taupier's home on August 29th, a question

that still arises separate and apart from the

constitutional questions raised by Attorney Baird in

her motion is the evidentiary question which Attorney

Baird and Attorney Hans framed in the motions in

10

limine filed by Attorney Hans, and that is whether or

11

not the guns and ammunition seized on 8/29 and/or the

12

guns seized on Septemberwhat date were they taken

13

from Satula?

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

15

THE COURT:

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

19th.

No, Satula.
Oh, September 2nd, right?

Yeah,

September 2nd.

18

THE COURT:

The 2nd is Satula?

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

ATTY. HANS:

Yep.

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

Yeah.

So we have the issue of the

22

guns taken from Mr. Taupier, the guns taken from Mr.

23

Satula on 9/2, whether or not those guns and

24

ammunition and magazines should be allowed into

25

evidence, and the other question about the

26

admissibility of evidence concerns the State's effort

27

to introduce testimony regarding the voyeurism

21
1

allegations.

evidentiary questions, because what I propose to do

is to hear from you on this evidentiary question,

confirm that that, sort of, covers the whole

landscape, take a short recess and then return to the

bench to issue my ruling on everything.

You dont like that idea or?

ATTY. HANS:

9
10

So lets turn our attention to the

I was just -- I was hoping since

its my motion I was hoping I get to go first, but -THE COURT:

Yeah, you can go first if youd like

11

to go first you can go first.

12

limine, so you want to go first on arguing the

13

admissibility of it of both?

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

THE COURT:

Its your motion in

Yes, Your Honor.


Both, okay.

And the other thing I

16

just wanted to cover is Mr. Peruta is here, is he in

17

the hallway with --

18

THE MARSHAL:

19

THE COURT:

He is, Your Honor.


All right.

Id like him to remain

20

in attendance only because Ive received word that

21

Mr. Peruta is asking for permission to cover these

22

proceedings as a media representative, so Ill need

23

him in the courtroom.

24

But lets continue with the evidentiary issue.

25

Why do you think these things are evidentiary in

26

nature?

27

admissible, rather?

Why do you think these things are

22
1

ATTY. HANS:

And, Your Honor, they are relevant

under the Evidence Code because under the First Count

of the information we have charged first degree

threatening, it requires that the defendant

represents by his words or conduct that he possesses

a firearm.

contained a reference to a .308, 60 rounds of

ammunition, it contained referenced to both

ammunition and firearms.

As you know, the body of the e-mail

It's part of an element of

10

one of the crimes that we are attempting to prove,

11

its a Class D felony, five year felony, and were

12

attempting to admit the evidence of the firearms and

13

ammunition to show that not only did Mr. Taupier have

14

the threat or shooting into Judge Bozzutos window,

15

he had the means to effectuate it.

16

When you look carefully at all the State v.

17

Krijger factors, and thats 313 Conn. 434, its a

18

2014 case, all of the factors that you look to

19

consider whether its a true threat support admitting

20

the guns, Your Honor.

21

not -- one of the factors is whether or not you can

22

ever carry out the threat.

23

about blowing blow up -- the threat was blowing up

24

the defendants car and they said, well, we dont

25

know if he has the capability to do that.

26
27

First of all, whether or

In Krijger they talked

Well, here, Your Honor, I intend to produce


evidence that had high-powered assault rifles that

23
1

could travel over 245 yards with a scope on them and

a tripod and it could go through her double-pane

master bedroom windows.

showing that, demonstrating that the weapons that

were seized in this case were operable, could travel

the distance, had enhanced featherweight firing

mechanisms so to prevent a larger recoil.

under the Krijger factors its extremely relevant

evidence.

10

I actually have a video

So I think

It also goes under the true threat doctrine to

11

whether or not he manifested a serious intent to

12

carry out the threat, Your Honor.

13

court order.

14

all of those weapons.

15

mail he inquired to Mr. Satula and said, hey, I want

16

to get my firearms back.

17

going to offer evidence that on the inventory it says

18

do not return unless theres a court order.

19

knew darn good and well that he wasnt going to --

20

supposed to get those weapons, its in the 4/3/13

21

family court order that he is to surrender all of

22

weapons and ammunition until the conclusion of the

23

case.

24

think, about a week after the August 22nd, 2014 e-

25

mail was sent, so a month before and then shortly

26

thereafter the e-mail he acquired the means to carry

27

out that threat.

He defied a family

He was under court order to surrender


A month before he sent that e-

By the way, the States

So he

He went to Mr. Satula's residence only, I

24
1

And, you know, this case is all about whether or

not it was a true threat.

Judge Bozzuto wasnt the original recipient of the e-

mail, six other people were, thats why we charged

reckless disregard of creating terror, because one of

the recipients didnt even know him very well and was

so alarmed that she alerted the marshals.

8
9

THE COURT:

It was sent via a third,

All right.

question as Im hearing this.

Well, let me ask a


Is it the State's

10

claim and desire to introduce evidence that after the

11

e-mail was sent on August 22nd that the defendant

12

went to Mr. Satula's house and obtained some of the

13

guns from Mr. Satula?

14

ATTY. HANS:

That is the States offer of

15

proof.

16

that very detailed and alarming threat against the

17

family court judge, whom he considered had issued

18

adversarial rulings.

19

can present our case without the firearms admitted

20

into evidence.

21

of the first degree threatening crime and in the

22

threatening in the second degree crime theyre also a

23

subset of that.

24

And that manifested his intent to carry out

Your Honor, I dont think we

They are what they are, theyre part

So theyre highly relevant.

If you want me to address their prejudicial

25

impact, well, theyre firearms and, yes, I guess the

26

admission of any type of weaponry might be

27

prejudicial to the jury but its prejudicial impact is

25
1

greatly outweighed by its probative value.

of the States case, its a crucial element of the

first degree threatening crime, theyre relevant to

show his state of mind, theyre relevant to show that

a true threat was effectuated not just mere ranting

which is what the defense is in this case I believe,

they should be admitted into evidence.

seized under a lawful warrant, thats the States

position, as contraband in this case and they should

10
11

Its part

They were

be admitted as full exhibits.


THE COURT:

All right.

And what about the claim

12

that the jury should hear about the voyeurism

13

allegations?

14

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, again Im just --

15

I hate to harp on the State v. Krijger case, but its

16

really the seminal case that just came out about

17

whether or not its a true threat.

18

listener and the relationship of the parties and the

19

information that the listener had all provide context

20

of whether or not its a true threat.

21

that Judge Bozzuto knew that the defendant had

22

surreptitiously videotaped his wife and placed it on

23

a social media Internet site, I believe shell

24

testify that she found it very creepy, Your Honor.

25

So her state of mind going into this threatening e-

26

mail, and there were other factors, but her state of

27

mind going into this threatening e-mail was affected

The effect on the

And the fact

26
1

by her knowledge of the defendants posting the

mother of his child, two children, on a social

website for nudity.

dont want to put words in her mouth, but I believe

thats what shell say.

THE COURT:

She found that disconcerting.

And is she also going to be -- do

you anticipate shell be testifying also that she was

aware of stipulation to return the weapons?

9
10

ATTY. HANS:

I believe so.

Im not 100 percent

positive --

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. HANS:

Youre not sure.


-- but I believe that she was aware

13

of the family court order that he was not to possess

14

firearms.

15

THE COURT:

All right.

And so because -- Im

16

changing gears here back to the voyeurism claims --

17

so she -- well, withdrawn.

18

Because of her knowledge of that allegation

19

youre claiming that the effect of the threat on her

20

was heightened because she felt that it was creepy?

21

To use your words.

22
23

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

I believed it

increased her trepidation significantly.

24

THE COURT:

25

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.
In the backdrop of the detailed

26

threat about her home, and then what he had done to

27

his wife.

Clearly, this is a -- I think in her mind,

27
1

I dont want to put words in her mouth, but I think

she felt that he had -- was very, very upset about

the divorce proceedings, they were acrimonious, there

was a child custody battle.

THE COURT:

Well, she so knew of an allegation

that Mr. Taupier made -- Im sorry -- that Mrs.

Taupier made against Mr. Taupier?

8
9

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, to be blunt, I

believe she knew of the pending criminal case.

10

would sanitize it and Im not asking that we

11

reference to his --

12

THE COURT:

But I

But your effort to sanitize it would

13

mean that she would say that, I learned during the

14

course of my involvement in the family court case

15

that Mr. Taupier had -- was alleged to have

16

surreptitiously filmed his wife and uploaded the

17

video.

18

offering?

Is that sum and substance what youd be

19

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

20

very limited inquiry.

21

THE COURT:

It would be a

And what does Mr. Taupier do to --

22

what does he then do, he then is permitted to put on

23

testimony that he didn't do that and the wife made it

24

up, and then do you get to then put on evidence that

25

shows that the wife is truthful and defendant isn't?

26

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, I would say --

27

THE COURT:

And this is all, by the way,

28
1

occurring during the course of a threatening case not

a voyeurism case.

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

And what I would

submit to you that this can be cured very easily with

a limiting instruction.

truth, its offered to show the effect on the

listener and her state of mind and if you

specifically instruct the jury that they cannot

consider it for its truth only to determine whether

10
11

Its not offered for its

Judge Bozzuto had heightened alarm.


THE COURT:

Well, let me ask you this, if Judge

12

Bozzuto had had knowledge, somebody said to her, you

13

know, this guy, Mr. Taupier, he's committed three

14

murders in the past, so what am I going to do, Im

15

going to tell the jury, don't use that for anything

16

other than the effect on Judge Bozzuto?

17

know, I understand that theres a lot of relevant

18

evidence that a court has an obligation to exclude

19

nonetheless, and despite its relevance because every

20

piece of evidence, at least as I understand my role,

21

requires me to do that delicate balance between

22

prejudice and probative value.

23

significant concern to me, both with regard to the

24

voyeurism allegations, which I believe are contested

25

by the defendant, and perhaps also, but to a somewhat

26

lesser degree, with regard to the guns.

27

I mean, you

And that is of

So I understand your claim that its relevant --

29
1

the guns are relevant to show the effect -- may be

relevant to show heightened fear in Bozzuto if she

was aware of the guns and their claimed surrender.

The guns are also relevant under Krijger to show

means and wherewithal to carry out the threat, which

is relevant to determining whether its a true

threat.

the voyeurism case because of the fact that it

heightened Judge Bozzutos trepidation, correct?

Youre also offering video allegations in

10

ATTY. HANS:

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.


Okay.
And just the firearms, I mean, its

13

an element of crime in the First Count, which is

14

threatening in the first degree.

15

THE COURT:

Well, I dont know if its an

16

element -- you know, youre saying its an element of

17

the crime.

18

degree does have a theory that he made the threat

19

using a gun, youve specifically charged that he made

20

a threat representing by his, you say, words or

21

conduct.

22

possessed the gun.

23

element of the crime here that the defendant -- in

24

fact, Im confident that the State would be able to

25

pursue a threatening one case even if the defendant

26

was not found to have been in possession of firearms.

27

So to say that the possession of a firearm is an

The crime of threatening in the first

I suspect it should just be words, that he


So Im not sure that theres an

30
1

element, I think, elevates the firearms evidence to a

status of which is it not deserving.

Attorney Baird, how do you see the whole picture

here?

came up in the context of your clients decision as

to whether to go the jury or the court, you did

express an overall concern about the inflammatory

nature of this evidence.

the relevance and then also hear your thoughts on the

10
11

I know that when this first came up, and it

So Ill hear you first on

balance of prejudice and probative.


ATTY. BAIRD:

We did raise the issue that

12

testimony and evidence about the firearms would be

13

more prejudicial than probative in this case.

14

Evidence about firearms is not required in this case

15

to prove the First Count, its not an element that

16

Mr. Taupier possessed any firearms.

17

appears that what the State is trying to do through

18

alleging threatening in the first degree and stating

19

that is it an element that he possessed the firearms

20

and was ready, willing and able to go forth and carry

21

out the threat, it almost raises it above to another

22

level of a charge beyond threatening in the first

23

degree, but the State isnt charging that.

24

THE COURT:

And, in fact, it

May I ask just a question and

25

then -- youve started off right away by addressing

26

probative value versus prejudice.

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

31
1

THE COURT:

Are you conceding that the guns are

relevant and seeking to exclude them just on the

balance or are you questioning their relevance?

4
5

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I started at the end where

the State left off, so Ill go back to the beginning.

THE COURT:

Fine.

Okay.

Because I want to hear

you on both and then youll separately address the

videotaping, the voyeurism?

ATTY. BAIRD:

10

THE COURT:

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

Okay.
Going back again to the risk

12

warrant in this case where it's apparent that, I

13

believe, its Paragraph 10 -- excuse me, its

14

Paragraph 7 in the risk warrant, that officers on

15

August 29th, 2014 were aware that or said they were

16

aware that Mr. Taupier had firearms registered to

17

him.

18

at that time.

19

the firearms as evidence on August 29th, 2014 of the

20

threatening or harassment charge.

21

has to do with the videotaping.

22

There was no effort to obtain them as evidence


So even the state police did not view

I am -- well, that

Theres no evidence that Mr. Taupier possessed

23

these firearms anywhere near Judge Bozzuto, that any

24

of the firearms or any of the items named in the e-

25

mail were ever in Mr. Taupier's possession and I

26

think that explains why there wasnt a search and

27

seizure warrant because certainly, for example, if

32
1

the state police had information that Mr. Taupier had

registered the firearms specifically referenced in

the e-mail then they would have wanted to get a

search and seizure warrant to seize that.

no indication that there was ever any information

that Mr. Taupier possessed any firearm or item that

was referenced in the e-mail, and that takes it away

from relevance right there if, in fact, the State is

going to use the e-mail and rely on the words in the

So theres

10

e-mail as the threat that was communicated in this

11

case.

12

relying on is the e-mail.

13

And from my understanding thats all they're

I heard the State say that they need the

14

firearms to prove their case, I dont know if thats

15

limited to the First Count or all the counts, but our

16

position all along has been that the words in that e-

17

mail do not constitute a threat and so I understand

18

why the State is trying to bootstrap other

19

information in this case to prejudice the jury, but

20

that still doesnt make it relevant.

21

THE COURT:

Well, with regard to the relevance

22

question, how respond to the States reliance on

23

Krijger, which unquestionably, is significant as I

24

embark on this.

25

that Krijger does reference specifically, I believe

26

in Footnote 11 -- excuse me just a minuteyeah, it is

27

Footnote 11.

Because am I -- wouldnt you agree

Doesnt Footnote 11 in Krijger indicate

33
1

that one of the shortcomings in the Krijger evidence,

and one of the reasons that the court in Krijger

overturned the conviction and overturned the

Appellate Courts ruling regarding that conviction

was that, and I'm quoting from Footnote 11, the State

presented no evidence that the defendant had access

to Kepple's vehicle, Kepple is K-E-P-P-L-E,

apostrophe S, or that he possessed the skills or

wherewithal necessary to carry out such a threat.

10

Sort of to put that in context, the court in

11

Krijger said the evidence was insufficient as a

12

matter of law to support the jury's verdict because

13

the threat there made by Mr. Krijger related to a

14

somewhat veiled suggestion that he was going to in

15

some way cause Mr. Kepple to be harmed in a motor

16

vehicle accident akin to the type of accident that

17

Mr. Kepples son had tragically been involved in some

18

months earlier.

19

conviction, our Supreme Court, pointed out that the

20

State didn't introduce any evidence that Mr. Krijger

21

had the means or wherewithal to carry out that

22

particular threat.

23

to say that this concept of vehicular sabotage might

24

be common in the movies, but its practically unheard

25

of in the real world.

26

a shortcoming in the Krijger evidence.

27

And the court in overturning that

And the court, in fact, went on

So that was brought up to show

So what the State is saying here that if the

34
1

shortcoming -- if the lack of that evidence

undermines the State's case then the presence of that

evidence must be relevant.

claim that Mr. Taupier is facing is that he

threatened to do harm to Judge Bozzuto by use of a

firearm.

had the means or wherewithal to carry through or

carry out such a threat.

evidence be relevant under the clear language and

10

So in our case here the

So the State wants to show that Mr. Taupier

So why wouldn't that

unanimous opinion by our Supreme Court in Krijger?

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, first of all I just wanted

12

to clarify and I believe the Court said allegation

13

that there is a threat to Judge Bozzuto in the e-

14

mail, we dont concede that.

15
16

THE COURT:

Yeah.

I mean, the words are the

words.

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

THE COURT:

Right.
So, I mean, the finder of fact in

19

this case is going to be, in the first instances,

20

tasked with the duty of determining whether this is a

21

true threat.

22

that in determining whether its a true threat one --

23

a factfinder should be permitted to consider whether

24

or not the defendant had the wherewithal to carry it

25

out.

26

Baird, Id certainly like to hear your view of it

27

because it is set out pretty much as Ive just in

But it does seems that Krijger holds

If you read Krijger differently, Attorney

35
1
2

Footnote 11.
ATTY. BAIRD:

Other than the possession by Mr.

Taupier of these firearms I haven't heard any other

offer of proof from the State that would support that

Mr. Taupier possessed the skills or wherewithal

necessary to carry out a threat.

Ive heard is that he has firearms.

8
9

THE COURT:

In other words, all

Well, the wherewithal, I see as

encompassing not only the skills, but something

10

beyond that.

I dont think those words are the same.

11

The skills or wherewithal, to me, covers -- the

12

latter of those words, wherewithal, covers the

13

possession of the tools necessary or access to the

14

tool necessary to carry it out.

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.
I don't know whether or not theres

17

going to be evidence of the defendant's marksmanship

18

abilities, but I havent been asked to decide -- I

19

havent heard any mention of that from the State yet,

20

and I sense I would have if there was going to be

21

evidence about that and is there going to be any --

22

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, I think it comes in as

23

a party opponent admission.

I think the State, as a

24

proffer, would indicate that hes widely indicated

25

that he is a target shooter; he told Dan Satula he

26

was a target shooter.

27

he said that he works on guns as a hobby and he also

I believe by his own admission

36
1

alters their triggering mechanisms so theyre

featherweight.

the firearm expert that they are altered.

4
5

Youre going to hear evidence from

THE COURT:
if I allow it.

Im only going to hear the evidence


I think is the --

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, our proffer is -Yes.


-- our proffer is that you may hear

evidence that he actually had the wherewithal and

10

skills to alter assault rifles to where the recoil

11

would be much, much less poundage and he enhanced

12

their trigger mechanisms --

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. HANS:

How would that be relevant?


Well, Your Honor, I think anybody

15

can shoot a gun, so I think the skill set, if you

16

have a gun and you can load it you can probably shoot

17

it.

18

THE COURT:

Well, then why would any specific

19

talents of Mr. Taupier then even be relevant?

20

its your claim that anybody with the gun can shoot

21

it and hit the intended target then why should the

22

jury be presented with evidence about Mr. Taupiers

23

particular skills?

24

ATTY. HANS:

If

Well, let me tell you why that I

25

think its important, Your Honor.

He says that he

26

could shoot from a distance -- by the way, a .308,

27

and thats referencing a caliber of rifle, at 250

37
1

yards with a double pane, the window of Judge

Bozzutos residence apparently, drops .5 inches per

foot beyond the glass and loses seven percent of its

foot pounds of force at 250 yards.

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

8
9
10

I know what the e-mail says.


Non-armor piercing ball ammunition.
I know what the e-mail says.

Ive

read it.
ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, I dont --

THE COURT:

But that has nothing -- youre

11

suggesting now that youre going to be attempting to

12

offer specific evidence that goes toward Mr.

13

Taupier's skills and Ive asked why thats relevant,

14

why is it relevant that he can change the trigger

15

mechanism?

16

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, he has knowledge of

17

weapons, he knows how to use them and in his

18

e-mail --

19
20

THE COURT:

Well, but I thought you just said

that anybody can shoot a gun.

21

ATTY. HANS:

Well, he has specific knowledge of

22

high-caliber weapons.

23

everybody can shoot a BB gun, Im not sure if they

24

can have a scope rifle with a tripod with a

25

featherweight trigger, high-power .42 caliber [sic]

26

magazines that are registered by the State of

27

Connecticut that have to be registered because they

Im not sure anybody can --

38
1

are high-power rifle magazines, so Im not sure that

thats a run-of-the-mill knowledge that someone would

have.

THE COURT:

All right.

So then you are going to

be seeking to offer specific testimony about

purported admissions made by the defendant in which

he comments on his unique skill set or his experience

with weapons?

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, I think the only

10

admissions he made is that he is a gun enthusiast and

11

works on them as a hobby.

12

given to him by his father-in-law.

13

THE COURT:

I think a lot of them were

So if he wasn't a gun enthusiast but

14

he still had a dozen guns in his house, so what's the

15

relevance that he once said hes a gun enthusiast?

16

ATTY. HANS:

Well, I think its relevant to show

17

could -- does he have the skill set to shoot 245

18

yards because maybe -- unless youre the American

19

Sniper you probably dont have that skill set.

20
21
22

THE COURT:

So what evidence do you have of his

particular skill set to fire the gun?


ATTY. HANS:

Just that hes familiar with

23

weapons, he alters their trigger mechanism, he is a

24

gun enthusiast and I believe he does target shooting.

25

THE COURT:

Okay.

So are you going to be trying

26

to introduce evidence about some unique experience or

27

greater experience than the average person might have

39
1

with guns in order to support -- and youre

introducing that for the same reason that youre

introducing the guns themselves, do I understand that

right, that it goes to the skills and wherewithal

language in Footnote 11?

ATTY. HANS:

In Footnote 11 of Krijger the

ability to effectuate the threat that he so

specifically detailed.

THE COURT:

Okay.

So then, Attorney Baird, I

10

guess I was not aware of the extent of the State's

11

offer, but it now covers not only the guns themselves

12

but this latter question, frankly, about the skill

13

set, Im not really prepared to rule on that because

14

this is the first Im hearing of it.

15

still want to have you comment, to the extent you

16

havent already finished, about your views as to the

17

introduction as an evidentiary matter of the guns,

18

the ammo and the magazines.

19

questions its relevance, I know that you feel that

20

its prejudicial, but I did cut you off sort of

21

midstream, so Id like you to finish whatever youd

22

like to say, and then switch gears to the taping,

23

alleged taping by Mr. Taupier of his wife.

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

I do, though,

So I know you have

The only thing that the State has

25

to prove according to Krijger in Footnote 11, and I

26

don't mean the only thing, I didnt mean that way,

27

but the only thing pertinent to this conversation and

40
1

what were talking about is that Mr. Taupier had

access to whatever he referenced in his e-mail to --

THE COURT:

Im sorry.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Say that once more.

What were discussing right now is

the State's position that it needs to show that Mr.

Taupier had access to whatever its alleged, whatever

items its alleged that he threatened to carry out

the threat to Judge Bozzuto.

theyre alleging that he threatened to use firearms

In other words, if

10

against Judge Bozzuto then my understanding or

11

argument is they believe they or that its relevant

12

that Mr. Taupier had access to firearms and could

13

have carried out the threat.

14

THE COURT:

Right.

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

So if I send an e-mail to someone

16

and say, I'm going to run you over with my car I

17

think the relevant information is do I have access to

18

a car.

19

15 cars in my garage, none of thats relevant.

20

have access to a car?

21

everybody.

22

allegedly threaten somebody with a firearm and just

23

because I dont have the firearm doesnt mean its

24

not a threat?

25

Not whether I own a car, not whether I have


Do I

Everybody has access to guns,

And so I can send an e-mail now and

THE COURT:

No.

I don't think that the absence

26

of the firearm precludes as a matter of law the -- I

27

dont believe the absence of the defendant's access

41
1

to firearms precludes the prosecution as a matter of

law, but the defendants -- the fact that the

defendant does have the ability to access firearms is

evidence that the State feels should be heard under

the courts decision in Krijger.

ATTY. BAIRD:

But theres no question that Mr.

Taupier had access to firearms, theres no question

that everyone has access to firearms.

to show is that he had these firearms at his house.

What they want

10

Even if he didnt have any firearms he could have

11

gone out and bought 12 that day.

12

THE COURT:

Well, that may well be, but I

13

dont -- and maybe thats your argument that it goes

14

to the weight or the significance of it, but then

15

what is the language mean in Footnote 11 that the

16

defendant had the means -- Im sorry -- the skills

17

and wherewithal to carry out a threat, why is that an

18

evidentiary insufficiency?

19
20
21

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I -- because the court goes

on to say, you know, its really more of a fantasy.


THE COURT:

Yeah.

I agree.

I dont disagree,

22

thats what Footnote 11 is, but so this is far less a

23

fantasy.

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

But my argument is that is what it

25

applies to.

For example, you send out an e-mail and

26

say Im going to have aliens, and I dont mean -- I

27

mean from space --

42
1

THE COURT:

I understand.

ATTY. BAIRD:

-- Im going to have aliens kidnap

you, you know, tomorrow.

would be hard for the State to present evidence that

the defendant had the means or wherewithal to do

that.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, under Krijger it

Agreed.
Not a real threat.

Not a true

threat.

And I think thats what theyre talking

10

about.

Theyre not talking about something that

11

everybody has access to.

12

access to cars, basically, to run people over, I

13

guess.

14

people, I guess.

15

or you possess firearms isnt relevant; its whether

16

you had access to it.

17

THE COURT:

You know, everybody has

Everybody has access to firearms to shoot


And the fact that you possess a car

All right.

I understand your

18

relevance claim.

19

probative balancing, am I to understand that whatever

20

probative value that this evidence might have in your

21

view would be outweighed by its inflammatory and

22

therefore prejudicial nature in the eyes of the jury?

23

With regard to prejudice and

ATTY. BAIRD:

Not a true threat not talking

24

about something everybody has access to, all have

25

access to cars, firearms

26
27

THE COURT:

I understand the relevance claim

with regard to prejudice and probative balancing

43
1

would be outweighed by its inflammatory --

ATTY. BAIRD:

I mean, yeah.

Well, thats the

second prong, yes.

that because he had 15 firearms it made him more

likely or more able to carry it out than if he had

one?

THE COURT:

I mean, is the State alleging

No.

Thats a point that Ive

already given some consideration to, sobut I'll

address that in my ultimate ruling so that you can

10

then make an informed decision on your court trial or

11

jury trial election.

12

if you wish.

13
14
15
16

ATTY. BAIRD:

So, but Ill hear you further

At this time on the video if were

done -THE COURT:

Or if you have anything more on the

guns or -- so your claim is that its irrelevant?

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

Yes.

And therefore should be excluded?


Yes.
And to the extent that it bears

21

relevance, its probative value is outweighed by its

22

prejudice?

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

24

THE COURT:

Yes.
All right.

And I understand that

25

you read Krijger in a somewhat more narrow way than

26

perhaps the State does and do not believe that

27

Krijger stands for the proposition that the State

44
1

should be able to introduce evidence of the

defendants possession -- of the means to carry out a

threat, at least in situations where anyone could

access those means.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

And Ill just, you know,

repeat the example of Im threatening to run somebody

over, I have 15 cars, you take all 15 cars and those

are related to my threat?

THE COURT:

I mean, I understand your claim.

10

just dont know whether Im willing to accept that

11

were talking here about apples and apples.

12

that you may feel that given the rights that citizens

13

have to possess guns that everyone can possess guns,

14

but I think that it is a subset of those who choose

15

to possess guns.

16

going to run you down with my car as an apt analogy

17

to what were dealing with here may be strained a

18

bit.

19

about -- assuming thats concluded your argument?

So I suspect that your use of I'm

But I understand the claim.

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

I know

How do you feel

Yes.
Then Ill hear you on the

22

videotaping, which as I understand it is being

23

offered under the Krijger holding, insofar as Krijger

24

stands for the proposition that the recipients

25

reaction is relevant.

26

recipient has knowledge of the defendant's

27

characteristics, it does, in the States view, color

So the extent to which the

45
1

the listener's interpretation of the statement as a

true threat or not a true threat.

ATTY. BAIRD:

When we moved for a trial back in

the fall I was not sure if the State was going to

attempt to join the two cases for trial against Mr.

Taupier.

Court that it was just proceeding on the threatening

and harassment count and so there was not the

necessity to argue at that time how it would

And then the State informed me and the

10

prejudice Mr. Taupier to have both matters heard at

11

the same time and if in fact it did prejudice him, I

12

didn't research it, so Im not making a

13

representation of the matter either way.

14

But I do know that in this particular case that

15

allegation is so attenuated to the charges here that

16

its not relevant.

17

sure it disturbs Mr. Taupier -- that a sitting

18

Superior Court judge on his case took into account a

19

pending charge where Mr. Taupier is presumed innocent

20

and came to a conclusion that a litigant in front of

21

her apparently she found creepy, thats disturbing.

22

But I heard that for the first time today.

23

Taupier is presumed innocent in the voyeurism case.

24

Whether or not a judge who was sitting in a matter in

25

which Mr. Taupier was a litigant, found him creepy is

26

not relevant to this case, it should be excluded as

27

improper.

It disturbs me that -- and Im

Now, Mr.

And if, in fact, it is brought into the

46
1

case then we will need to defend vigorously against

Judge Bozzutos proffered testimony that Mr. Taupier

is creepy.

THE COURT:

she found it creepy.

Well, I think the statement was that

ATTY. HANS:

That he surreptitiously videotaped

his wife in the nude and posted it.

refer to him as creepy.

THE COURT:

Excuse me.

She did not

I understand that you

10

have things to say, but with all due respect,

11

Attorney Hans, Im in the middle of a statement.

12

ATTY. HANS:

13

THE COURT:

I apologize, Your Honor.


To the extent I used the word

14

creepy in a different context then I at least

15

understood it to have been offered, I apologize.

16

don't believe that Attorney Hanss statement was that

17

Judge Bozzuto reported that she found the defendant

18

to be creepy, but rather found it creepy that one

19

would have engaged in that alleged behavior.

20

may be a subtle difference, but I think it is a

21

distinction nonetheless.

22

argument was suggesting that there was name calling

23

directed to a person as opposed to be behavior I

24

think that it shouldn't go uncorrected.

25

certainly in the event that the testimony is allowed,

26

that can be litigated.

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

That

And to the extent that your

But

It would also, I mean, it would

47
1

also open the door to other facts and information

that Judge Bozzuto has about litigants in front of

her, whether she has the same concerns, other threats

if in fact there have been that have been received in

any litigation she's been involved in.

the door to a lot of information that Mr. Taupier

would have a right to gather to defend himself

against, I mean, frankly, especially if its a jury,

a trier of fact hearing, a sitting court judge saying

It would open

10

that she found Mr. Taupiers conduct creepy and that

11

influenced her later on when through three or four

12

different people she received an e-mail that he sent

13

seven days later, its just not, its not relevant.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

And who knows what Judge Bozzuto

16

may think of other than that before she comes to

17

testify.

18

because she sat on his case.

19

mean, there have been a lot of pleadings and a lot of

20

allegations in that case, she could just run down the

21

list of things that Mr. Taupiers wife has claimed

22

about him and just say, you know, heres a hundred

23

things that I know about and when I got this then,

24

you know, it really concerned me because I knew all

25

this information about Mr. Taupier.

26
27

She knows a lot of things about Mr. Taupier

THE COURT:

All right.

I mean, she could -- I

Thank you.

So the

parties -- anything further or have the parties

48
1

concluded their arguments on the evidentiary

questions, Attorney Hans, thats finished?

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

Nothing further, Your Honor.


Any, Attorney Baird, youre also

finished?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Before then we recess, I think that covers

everything.

Yes.

Thank you, both.

There are some other motions that I

10

suspect still have to be addressed, but one of the

11

ones that I want to do before we break concerns a

12

media request or a claimed media request.

13
14

(Pause)
THE COURT:

I received on March 2nd from our

15

external affairs office a request that was forwarded

16

to me from -- it was a request made to External

17

Affairs by Mr. Peruta that was forwarded to me, and

18

that request is made to the Branch's External Affairs

19

and it is a request of Mr. Peruta asking for

20

authorization to videotape the criminal trial of Mr.

21

Taupier scheduled to begin in Middletown Judicial

22

District Court.

23

I know Mr. Peruta has been here, I think, every day

24

weve been in session since March 2nd.

25

indication that he was seeking to cover the

26

preliminary proceedings nor was there any indication

27

that he was seeking a ruling at this point.

I received the request, I didnt --

There was no

He was

49
1

here each day as, I believe, the defense investigator

and has been here as the defense investigator

throughout.

call this morning from External Affairs indicating

that Mr. Peruta forwarded a request that I make my

ruling on it.

But bringing it current, I received a

So is there someone here to -- Mr. Peruta?

MR. PERUTA:

the issue.

Your Honor, Id be happy to address

I wear many hats.

One of which is the

10

owner and president of America News and Information

11

Service.

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. PERUTA:

14

What are your other hats?


Legal investigator for Attorney

Rachel Baird.

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. PERUTA:

Okay.
It is America News that is making

17

the request.

It is my -- I have, in fact, been

18

recognized by the Chief Court Administrators Office

19

as a member of the media.

20

National Press Photographers Association.

21

various, long history of background in the media,

22

some of which Judge Mullarkey was aware of.

23

got done videotaping the complete appellate case of

24

Peruta v. The Freedom of Information Commission

25

argued by Attorney Baird and it is currently posted

26

for public viewing.

27

is this, I intend to have a camera person, and Ill

I am a member of the
I have

I just

I have clients, and my argument

50
1

segregate myself from that person, videotape the

actual trial, whether its a bench trial or a trial

to a jury, from gavel to gavel, obeying all of the

Courts requests and rules.

As an editorial, cameras tend to come into the

courtroom and show the arraignment and the bond

hearings and then they never come back and report the

end result or very few things in between.

to believe that court proceedings are in fact very

10
11

I happen

important to our society.


THE COURT:

Well, I dont need -- I dont think

12

I need editorial comment.

13

Information Services?

14

MR. PERUTA:

What is American News and

This is your company?

It is my company.

Its

15

incorporated in the State of Connecticut.

16

gathers, usually, spot news or unassignable

17

assignments or assignments that arent picked up by

18

the main stream brick and mortar media, and then sold

19

to the news desks.

20

called a stringer outfit, then the information phase

21

of it is, somebody can come up to me that doesnt --

22

that wants the anonymity and ask me to make FOI

23

requests and to gather information in their behalf,

24

whether its Attorney Baird or some other law firm

25

will contact me and ask me to acquire the

26

information.

27

THE COURT:

It

Its what in the business is

But you're the investigator on this

51
1

case.

MR. PERUTA:

THE COURT:

Yes, I am.
Well, that to me undermines your

claim that you are, at least in the course of this

trial, a media representative.

MR. PERUTA:

Attorney Baird.

THE COURT:

MR. PERUTA:

10

You are not --

American News does not work for

American News is your company.

THE COURT:

It is my company.
Well, I dont think you can so

11

conveniently sever the relationship as you're

12

attempting to.

13

acting as Attorney Bairds investigator and then made

14

a motion to have Channel 3 cover it, I would have the

15

same concerns as I have in this case.

16

for permission to sit at counsel table as the

17

investigator and now you want to, you say change

18

hats, and also be the media representative.

19

question whether or not other media representatives

20

would claim that with such a vested interest in the

21

trial as an investigator would clearly have one could

22

fairly be called a media representative.

23

least in my --

24

If a Channel 3 news reporter was

MR. PERUTA:

You have asked

Which at

With all due respect, to the Bench.

25

It would not be me running the camera.

All of my

26

footage would be made public, you know.

Ive had

27

this argument before.

Ive had it up in Litchfield.

52
1

Ive been granted access, been not been granted

access at a time when I, Edward Peruta, am Attorney

Bairds legal investigator.

unedited raw, becomes pool footage to the rest of the

media.

want snippets of the trial.

snippets you have to get the whole, and the request

is in fact from America News and Information

Services.

But all of the footage,

They wont want all of the trial; theyll

Yes, I own it.

But in order to get the

Yes, Im going to have

10

somebody other than me and Im perfectly prepared to

11

separate myself from Attorney Bairds law firm for

12

the period of this trial.

13

THE COURT:

Well, you cant -- Mr. Peruta, until

14

this request came in I was introduced to you only as,

15

in your capacity, as Ms. Baird's investigator in this

16

case.

17

MR. PERUTA:

18

THE COURT:

Thats correct.
At some point during our preliminary

19

proceedings it was brought to my attention that you

20

demanded the right to sit at counsel table and

21

complained to the marshal that as the investigator,

22

and the counterpart of the States investigator from

23

the other side of the aisle, you demanded the same

24

right that the prosecutor's investigator has to sit

25

next to your employer, Ms. Baird, in the same way

26

that the investigator is seated next to Attorney

27

Hans.

You were disturbed enough by the marshal's

53
1

initial objection to that such that it came to my

attention through the marshal that you had demanded

the right to sit in front of the bar and sit at

counsel table.

When I learned that I asked whether that was

your desire, and I believe its of record, said -- I

asked, I believe, Attorney Hans what her position

was, if she had one.

it to me.

I think she was going to leave

And I said, youre welcome to come

10

forward.

And, in fact, on each day if you were not

11

seated at the counsel table or on the bench reserved

12

for lawyers and their associates then Ive invited

13

you to come forward.

14

indicated I was going to take up this motion you came

15

right forward, right up past the bar and sat where

16

you have been permitted to sit as an investigator.

17

The media doesnt sit in that row.

18

the door, walked up, sat on the bench thats reserved

19

for the investigators.

20

MR. PERUTA:

And today, in fact, when I

You came through

Your Honor, in all due respect, I

21

did not know I was coming in on this issue.

22

thought I was coming in to possibly testify about

23

what Judge Mullarkey said inoculum (as heard).

24

not noticed as to what it was that --

25

THE COURT:

Okay.

I was

But you came in because you

26

felt you were an investigator and you sat where I let

27

the investigators sit.

54
1

MR. PERUTA:

THE COURT:

Absolutely, no question.
Okay.

And now youre making a

motion to be the media representative and to be the

president of the company --

MR. PERUTA:

THE COURT:

Yes
-- that is going to record these

proceedings.

MR. PERUTA:

THE COURT:

Right.

I'm --

And frankly its my -- whether or

10

not youve been approved by the Chief Court

11

Administrator or not I am convinced that the Chief

12

Court Administrators initial approval of either you

13

individually or America News and Information

14

Services -- incidentally, what has been approved by

15

the Chief Court Administrator, Edward Peruta or

16

American News and Information?

17

MR. PERUTA:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. PERUTA:

20
21
22
23

I believe both.
Well, you don't know?
The rules are very ambiguous.

Let

me -THE COURT:

Well, but the question is, so you

don't know?
MR. PERUTA:

I had to submit an application with

24

the work product that I had supplied to the media to

25

show that Im a media -- I distribute to the media,

26

and that media is gathered by me and others that I

27

credential through American News.

55
1

THE COURT:

But why do you say, I cover.

you keep saying, these credentials were my

credentials, what I do.

MR. PERUTA:

But

So youre individualizing --

Submitted to the court, Your Honor,

was video shot in San Diego, California and

distributed to local state and national news medias

by a gentleman by the name of JC Playford, okay,

because I am not just -- America News is not just

Edward A. Peruta shooting news.

10

THE COURT:

But if the organization that is

11

seeking permission to invoke the media rules under

12

the Practice Book is either individually or the

13

president of the company -- are there any other

14

people -- who else is involved in American News and

15

Information Services; is it a corporation?

16

MR. PERUTA:

Yes.

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. PERUTA:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. PERUTA:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. PERUTA:

No.

23

THE COURT:

Okay.

Is it a Connecticut corporation?
Yes.
Who else is listed?
My wife.
Anyone else?

So your company -- so you

24

feel that, if I understand it correctly, that any

25

investigator for an attorney who's going to be

26

handling a criminal trial, maybe even the attorney

27

him or herself, could incorporate a news service, get

56
1

that news service approved by the Chief Court

Administrator and then as the attorney or

investigator for the attorney could be the media

representative?

MR. PERUTA:

THE COURT:

MR. PERUTA:

8
9
10

Yes.
All right.

Well --

Because, Your Honor, if I may, and

I dont want to take up a lot of the Courts time.


THE COURT:

No.

MR. PERUTA:

Thats fine.

With no other media requests made

11

the Taupier trial is going to be held in a vacuum as

12

far as the visual media.

13

segregating myself as a legal investigator because I

14

am one of those believers and supporters in the

15

Second Amendment, that this this trial should not be

16

held in a vacuum, a news vacuum and the public should

17

be restricted to hearing edited snippets of it.

18

what I do with the footage that I shoot is my

19

business, but I assure the Court that the entire

20

transparent proceedings in this courtroom will, in

21

fact, be broadcast.

22

THE COURT:

And I believe as a person

Now,

Well, Im not even getting to the

23

latter issue of whether -- what you will do with the

24

video.

25

concerns whether or not you can under our rules act

26

as the media representative when you are and have

27

been involved in this particular case as the defense

Im at a very preliminary stage, which

57
1

attorney's investigator.

compensated by the defense either directly from

Attorney Baird or you are separately billing the

defendant.

but I trust there is --

6
7

I take it that you are

I dont care what that relationship is,

MR. PERUTA:

The record should reflect the

answer to that question.

THE COURT:

MR. PERUTA:

Go ahead.
It may not -- it may surprise the

10

Court that I do not receive any compensation from

11

Attorney Baird or the defendant, okay.

12

dont need their compensation.

13

THE COURT:

I financially

Well, I dont know if that helps or

14

hurts you then because you are then actually

15

volunteering your time and your efforts on behalf of

16

Attorney Baird or volunteering your efforts on behalf

17

of issues in this case or Mr. Taupier, I dont know

18

and I dont care to know.

19

the lack of impartiality that, at least in my

20

opinion, is the clearest indication of a media

21

representative.

22

without an interest in them.

23

MR. PERUTA:

But it demonstrates to me

You do not come to these proceedings

Your Honor, I am going to agree 100

24

with the Bench.

The rules put in place by

25

Connecticut Judicial do not address this issue.

26

rules were put in place and, as I stated, are very

27

vague and ambiguous as to who can, who cant, who

The

58
1

will, who wont, and what are the rules?

Im a

person who believes in the rules.

acknowledged, I was told what I can and can't do, and

I read the camera rules for a courtroom.

prepared to follow every single rule imposed by

Judicial and the presiding Administrative Judge or

the sitting judge in any courtroom.

with that video when it goes out, and I will

guarantee you, I'm not going to be the person

I applied, I was

Im

And what happens

10

pointing the camera at the witness box, the judge,

11

the defense or the prosecution, thats not going to

12

be me.

13

decisions as theyre happening.

14

Im not going to make those editorial

When I get the finished product Im perfectly

15

prepared to give a copy to the State, give a copy to

16

anybody that wants a copy of that video, okay, and

17

make sure that it publicized to provide transparency

18

to this court, this trial and the State Judicial

19

Department.

20

THE COURT:

Well, I still believe that our rules

21

are clear enough so as to require that one who

22

applies for the right to record court proceedings

23

must be determined by the judge presiding on the case

24

as a valid media member.

25

made your application to the Chief Court

26

Administrators Office to seek approval as a media

27

representative you did not disclose in that

And I trust that when you

59
1

application that you would be seeking authorization

to cover proceedings in which you were operating as

an investigator for one of the parties.

MR. PERUTA:

At the time of my application, and

Im very familiar with the people in External

Affairs, they were fully aware of the fact that I was

acting as a legal investigator for Attorney Rachel

Baird, and initially didn't know whether a stringer

would fall into the rules without providing evidence

10

that you do what you say you do.

11

Johnny-come-lately walks in and says, Im the media.

12

They were well aware of the fact of my position with

13

Attorney Baird, and it didn't arise until I went to

14

videotape a trial or an event in Litchfield and then

15

it became judicial rules du jour.

16

THE COURT:

Its not just

Well, Im not even aware of the

17

prior incident in Litchfield.

18

turned out.

19

ruled there, but Im making my own assessment of what

20

is appropriate in this case based on my

21

understanding.

22

I dont know how it

I dont know what the judge ultimately

MR. PERUTA:

And I have all the faith in the

23

world, Your Honor, that youre going to make an

24

appropriate decision and --

25

THE COURT:

And that may well be true, but I am

26

of a mind that while Judicial may have been aware at

27

the time that you applied that you also had another

60
1

job maybe that you worked for Attorney Baird, if you

claim that they knew that, that really begs the

question because the question is the following: Did

Judicial know that you were attempting to merge the

two; was Judicial giving you permission to film

proceedings in which you are involved and, in fact,

could be, I suspect, a witness?

8
9

MR. PERUTA:

So --

That, that did not come up during

the application process for recognition as media with

10

the Chief Court Administrator and that is an issue

11

that has to, I guess, materialize down the road and

12

if it was -- and Im saying to the Court and I

13

recognize the fact that I could end up being a

14

witness in this proceedings.

15

thats why I choose not to be the camera operator in

16

the courtroom if its granted.

17

to be me.

18

THE COURT:

I am fully aware of it,

Im -- its not going

Well, I see there is a -- I don't

19

see the only issue here being whos going to stand

20

behind the camera and push on and off.

21

whether or not the organization or individual who is

22

applying for permission under our rules to cover the

23

proceedings is appropriately considered a media

24

representative in this particular case.

25

ruling that given your involvement as the

26

investigator in this case and regardless of whether

27

or not America News and Information Services has

The issue is

And I am

61
1

separately been approved or not, that you are not nor

is American News and Information Services a media

representative under our rules and as a result, your

request to cover these proceedings is respectfully

denied.

MR. PERUTA:

Okay.

If I could have a

clarification; did I just hear the Bench correctly

that under the courts media rules that I nor

American News are a media representative?

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. PERUTA:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. PERUTA:

14
15

In this particular case.


In this particular case.
Correct.
Okay.

Im only ruling -I just -- I thought it was a

blanket that you -THE COURT:

No.

Ive received a request to

16

cover the matter of State versus Edward Taupier, that

17

is the only request on which I am entering a ruling.

18

MR. PERUTA:

Okay.

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. PERUTA:

21

THE COURT:

22

Then with that behind us, theres only one more

23

issue that I want to take up and then well break so

24

I can gather my thoughts an issue the ruling.

25

that is a motion that was handed to me an hour or two

26

ago, filed by the State, dated today, States motion

27

for continuance or videoconferencing of witness.

All right.
Thank you, very much for your time.
Youre welcome, Mr. Peruta.

And

62
1
2
3

Attorney Hans, your motion.

What is it you want

me to consider?
ATTY. HANS:

Yes, Your Honor.

I received from a

material witness, Michael Nowacki, yesterday and

today some e-mail correspondence regarding his

availability.

California, they have been planned for over a month.

I do have copies of the e-mails if the Court would

like to look at them and I can also provide a copy to

Mr. Nowacki has family plans to go to

10

Attorney Baird.

11

renovations, hes staying -- he plans to stay in

12

California until about May 1st.

13

resident, Your Honor, all of his family is there, his

14

son is there.

15

in Connecticut has been very stressful for him for

16

this court appearance and there have been some

17

delays.

18

I guess his house is under some

He is a California

Hes indicated that having to remain

THE COURT:

Well, before I hear more

19

specifically Im struggling to understand the relief

20

that you're seeking.

21

The State moves the Court to continue the above

22

captioned case for trial until April 27th, 2015 due

23

to the unavailability of a States crucial witness,

24

Michael Nowacki period.

25

continuance of this matter due to an injury sustained

26

by undersigned counsel that is adversely affecting

27

her ability to represent the People of the State of

The motion reads as follows:

The State also seeks a

63
1

Connecticut period.

seeks to conduct examination of Mr. Nowacki via

teleconferencing in California.

In the alternative, the State

So I dont see that those three sentences, sort

of, meld together.

Are you saying you cannot go

forward because of an injury, which is one issue.

Are you saying that you cannot go forward with your

injury [sic] because Mr. Nowacki wont be available,

which I see differently.

If youre asking for

10

permission to conduct a video conference or have him

11

testify through teleconferencing, are you claiming

12

that cannot be done while you are still suffering

13

from the injury that you sustained?

14

I understand what it is.

15

ATTY. HANS:

Im not certain

Well, Your Honor, I guess its just

16

a perfect storm Im in right now.

17

elbow last Friday.

18

left elbow.

19

discharge; its a minor, very, very minor fracture.

20

I fractured my

Im left handed, I fractured my

I do have the Middlesex Hospital

THE COURT:

I accept your representation.

21

not challenging the representation.

22

challenging what is it that you want me to do.

23

ATTY. HANS:

Im

Im just

Well, I have a material witness

24

whos indicated that they are going to be in

25

California and unavailable for this trial to be

26

examined directly in court.

27

might be willing to do a videoconferencing.

He did indicate that he

64
1

THE COURT:

But youve represented in this

motion that you can't do your job because you're

hurt.

because youre hurt then videoconferencing isnt

going to make you feel better.

struggling with the fact that youve alleged both of

these things.

handed and your injury has significantly affected

your ability to take notes and properly represent the

10

So if youre saying you cant do your job

So Im, sort of,

Your third paragraph says youre left

People of the State, so.

11

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, I have rig on my

12

computer that has a box and some jackets so I can

13

type.

14

THE COURT:

No.

I accept that it is harder to

15

do your work, but that doesnt have anything to do

16

with Nowackis availability.

17

ATTY. HANS:

18

THE COURT:

Well, Your Honor -If You can't go forward then tell me

19

you cant go forward and well decide what were

20

going to do.

21

your claim to be seen as in any sense a roundabout

22

way of getting a continuance so as to get Nowacki

23

back.

24

that youre hurt bad enough.

25

personal issues, and Im not disputing you fell,

26

obviously you reported that long before you made the

27

motion today, but I need to know what the claim is.

But I dont want, unfortunately, for

If you're hurt then tell me you cant do -When people have

65
1

If you are proceeding on that basis that you cant do

this and well see when your elbow feels better I

should know that, but Ill hear from Baird on that.

If your claim is, I can't go forward now because

Nowacki is unavailable, I see that as a different

calculus.

videoconferencing, thats okay.

that putting all this in one motion it weakens all of

the claims.

If the claim is, we can do this through


But I really think

10

ATTY. HANS:

11

candid with the Court.

12

had to take a lot of Advil and Aleve.

13

THE COURT:

Your Honor, I just want to be

Okay.

I have not felt well.

Ive

So then, please, then respond

14

to what I think is my primary concern, which is that

15

those who are here are on the top of their game.

16

you feel that you're not presently at the top of your

17

game, after I hear from Attorney Baird Ill make a

18

decision as to where we go from there.

19

urge you to be disclosing honestly to me as a

20

Commissioner of the Superior Court that this is an

21

injury that is hampering your ability and not a means

22

by which to effectuate a delay so as to make a

23

witness available.

24

and then Ill ask Attorney Baird what her views are.

25

ATTY. HANS:

If

But I have to

So Im going to take your word

Well, Your Honor, I did not want

26

to -- Mr. Taupier wants he trial and its been

27

delayed long enough, and I would like for him to be

66
1
2

able to get his trial as rapidly as possible.


THE COURT:

Yes.

Right.

Well, listen, this is

not entirely Mr. Taupier's decision.

I, frankly,

trust that Mr. Taupier may well understand the

situation better than you think he does.

listen, I would be acting the same way if the shoe

was on the other foot.

take a fall, but in the event that someone were to

take a fall I would be saying the same thing.

But,

I dont wish anyone else to

But

10

what is more difficult is when it says, I took a fall

11

and my witness can't be here, that muddies the water.

12

So if youre --

13

ATTY. HANS:

14

THE COURT:

15
16
17
18

Well, Your Honor -Listen.

I know you fell, I think on

Friday or Wednesday, when was it Wednesday?


ATTY. HANS:

Friday, March 6th right before the

Taupier hearing, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Friday.

Okay.

And I know that

19

youve been wearing a sling ever since, you have a

20

doctors appointment tomorrow morning at -- no --

21

ATTY. HANS:

22

THE COURT:

23
24

Thursday at 8:00 a.m.


Thursday at 8:00 a.m.

Well, heres

what -Well, Attorney Baird, I obviously respect

25

Attorney Hans as I do you and yesterday, when I

26

wasnt even aware of this issue, I was attempting to

27

accommodate everyone's schedule and, you know, first

67
1

and foremost thats what I try to do here.

This can

be a contested matter, which it obviously is, and

hotly so.

cause any of us to act without civility and without

recognition of the things that arise during the

course of any trial that can cause a delay.

working under the assumption, which I think is a fair

one, that Attorney Hans is probably in greater pain

and dealing with something that is probably not just

But I don't feel that that fact need to

So Im

10

a hindrance but an obstacle to her working at the

11

level that Im sure she wants to work in her

12

representation of the States people.

13

How do you feel about the following, heres what

14

I would propose that we do; Im going to issue my

15

ruling on the motions today, you have -- did you have

16

a chance to check out -- youre supposed to go

17

tomorrow to the legislature?

18

see when that would be -- I know you said the hearing

19

starts at -- they claim its going to open at 10:30?

20
21

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

25
26
27

Were you able to

I will make a call during the

break.

22

24

Okay.

Well, thats all right.


But I indicated it would be

helpful to know, so Ill call.


THE COURT:

All right.

Well, thats all right.

But it wont be before 10:30 -ATTY. BAIRD:

No.

68
1

THE COURT:

-- because thats when -- and I know

sometimes those hearings are scheduled for 10:30 and

theyre delayed.

is, Ill issue my rulings on the motions, you can

deal with your personal desire tomorrow to attend

this hearing, Attorney Hans is going to the doctor on

Thursday and get a better sense of where she stands,

we will reconvene here on Friday or actually, we

could do it Thursday afternoon, I have a full docket,

Heres what I might suggest we do

10

I know on Thursday, but I could probably -- whatever

11

you guys want to do.

12

morning and well see where we stand, if you want to

13

come Thursday afternoon, we can do that too.

14

Attorney Hans comes back after her doctors

15

appointment and say, you know what this is -- I have

16

to get a cast, I have to go take some medication then

17

Im going to have to consider that.

18

If you want to come in Friday

If

Do you have any initial thoughts on this

19

situation?

20

know what the doctor reports and how Attorney Hans

21

feels, but.

22

Ill let you be heard further once we

ATTY. BAIRD:

My initial thought is not

23

substantive, but my understanding is that Mike

24

Nowacki has been e-mailing the prosecutors office,

25

not only with regard to this but with regard to other

26

matters.

27

THE COURT:

Okay.

69
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

And since he is listed as a

State's witness I believe were entitled to each and

every e-mail that Mr. Nowacki has sent to the

prosecutors office.

THE COURT:

Well, lets put that aside for a

minute.

Whats your, if you care to comment or if

you care to talk to your client about this, it has

been my desire to get the case started.

this case has received expedited treatment in the

Certainly

10

sense that there are much older cases on the docket.

11

But because your client was eager to have his matter

12

heard we have gotten it going.

13

brief delay, yeah, but I mean these issues had to be

14

litigated in advance and even if we had started with

15

jury selection we would have needed two days to do

16

what weve just been doing.

17

Has there been a

So I want you to talk to Mr. Taupier.

Were

18

going to reconvene here at two o'clock.

Ill issue

19

my rulings at two oclock on all the motions.

20

inclination, Attorney Baird, is that you can be in

21

Hartford tomorrow at the legislature, whatever time

22

they get to you they get to you and that way we dont

23

have to be here waiting.

24

doctor and then well be a position to know where go

25

from there.

26

there a formal speedy trial motion that was filed?

27

dont recall.

My

Attorney Hans can see the

So talk to Mr. Taupier about it.

Is
I

70
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

No, it wasn't ripe for that.


Right.

And I suspect it still

isn't, given that your clients out because it

would -- I mean, unless you were raising a

Constitutional speedy trial claim where youd have to

satisfy the requirements, but it isnt a statutorily

ripe claim.

maybe you can talk to Mr. Taupier about it.

well convene -- reconvene, rather, at two oclock.

10
11

But anyway, well deal with that.

And

Well be in recess until then. Thank you, all.


(Recess at 11:48.

12

THE COURT:

13

second, please.

14
15

But

Resume at 2:07 p.m.)

Thanks everybody.

Just give me one

(Pause)
THE COURT:

The Court's prepared to rule on what

16

it believes are all of the outstanding motions which

17

have been the subject of the hearings over the course

18

of the last two days.

19

of the overarching principles that Ill be applying

20

in resolving the motions that are now before me.

21

First I want to set out a few

Number one, the law generally encourages police

22

to obtain warrants prior to conducting searches

23

rather than undertaking such searches without prior

24

judicial authorization.

25

preference for warrants, the courts reviewing

26

searches by warrant should give greater deference to

27

the police when they take the time to get a warrant

And because of that

71
1

than might otherwise be appropriate where police

proceed without a warrant.

Number two, when a court is asked to evaluate a

search warrant, it is directed to do so in a

commonsense, practical manner rather than in a hyper-

technical sense.

Three, in adjudicating Fourth Amendment issues

and in determining whether to apply the exclusionary

rule to bar the States use of otherwise admissible

10

evidence, the court should at all times be mindful of

11

the Fourth Amendments purpose; that is, to protect

12

citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

13

Four, as to the exclusionary rule and its

14

application, the Court is also well advised to keep

15

in mind that the rule should be applied only in

16

circumstances and in cases where there has been a

17

violation of a citizens Fourth Amendment rights;

18

that is when a citizen has been subject to an

19

unreasonable search and seizure.

20

appropriately applied in the absence of such a

21

violation of a citizens constitutional rights and it

22

is inappropriate to apply, at least in this Courts

23

view, as significant a sanction as the exclusion of

24

otherwise relevant evidence simply as a sanction for

25

what be viewed by many as substandard police

26

behavior.

27

The rule is not

So with those general principles in mind let me

72
1

turn to this case and the issues that have been the

subject of the hearing.

Taupier, is asking this Court to invoke the

exclusionary rule and to suppress the guns,

ammunition and magazines that were seized by the

police on August 29th, 2014.

Taupiers home on that date and seized the items that

have been noted in the hearing and are inventoried on

one of the exhibits.

The defendant, Edward

The police entered Mr.

The police conducted that

10

search on the basis of the risk warrant that Judge

11

Mullarkey had issued shortly before the search took

12

place on August 29th.

13

At this point I needn't reiterate all of the

14

flaws identified by the defendant, and properly so,

15

that were present in the warrant itself, in the

16

process that the police used in executing that

17

warrant, the changes that were subsequently made to

18

it, the fact a copy wasn't left with the defendant

19

nor was a return made properly.

20

those things shortly in my remarks.

Im going to cover

21

The State, however -- Im sorry -- the defense,

22

rather, however, contends that these deficiencies in

23

the warrant and in the process of executing it,

24

either individually or perhaps even more so on the

25

basis of the confluence of all of these shortcomings,

26

warrant suppression of all of this evidence through

27

the application of the exclusionary rule.

73
1

In resolving those issues let me comment on one

aspect of this question, which ultimately I dont

have to reach but I think is worthy of a brief note.

And that is, whether the exclusionary rule which is

traditionally invoked in connection with a criminal

search warrant actually applies to a risk warrant

under 29-38c.

her arguments over the course of the last couple of

days has described a risk warrant as more of a civil

Counsel for the defense in certain of

10

action or proceeding.

11

yesterday, that I was troubled by the fact that

12

counsel for the defense wanted the benefit of the

13

exclusionary rule and yet didnt want to bear its

14

burden.

15

civil action, a risk warrant, wants the Court not

16

only to apply the exclusionary rule but to do so

17

actually in a more expansive way by finding that any

18

deficiencies in the warrant itself or in the manner

19

it was executed justifies the suppression of the

20

evidence seized.

21

I commented, I believe

But the defense here, through calling this a

Now, one could argue that if this is a civil

22

action, a risk warrant, then the exclusionary rule

23

shouldn't apply at all.

24

saying that in recent years the scope of the

25

exclusionary rule, and what I mean by that is the

26

situations in which it is to be applied, have been

27

narrowed by courts rather than being applied to a

I think it goes without

74
1

broader range of circumstances.

And I couldn't find

any specific cases that would -- in Connecticut --

indicate whether the 29-38c warrant process is an

appropriate process for the exclusionary rule to

apply.

necessary for me to resolve that question in this

case because the conclusion that Im reaching with

regard to the motion to suppress is that even if the

exclusionary rule does apply to a risk warrant, it

Maybe fortunately, I dont think its

10

would not properly be invoked under the facts of this

11

case.

12

In the next part of my remarks I want to discuss

13

the deficiencies.

14

not entirely unsympathetic to the defendant's claim

15

here that the flaws in this warrant and in its manner

16

of execution, particularly when viewed under the

17

totality of the circumstances, presents a wholly

18

unflattering portrait of the efforts of police to

19

secure and execute this warrant.

20

have been identified during the hearing should not

21

have been made in the first place and some, if not

22

many of them, should have been caught by someone

23

before they impacted on the process itself.

24

Let me say at the outset that I am

The mistakes that

The police who prepared the risk warrant, while

25

not to be criticized for using a prior warrant as a

26

template, need to be hyper vigilant in todays cut

27

and paste world to ensure that their final product is

75
1

correct.

the warrant page and seen that the name that had

appeared on the warrant page was not that of Mr.

Taupier.

the affiants themselves then certainly by their

supervisor who apparently, according to the

testimony, proofread it.

8
9

The police should have caught the error on

That should have been caught and if not by

Now, I realize that, as I said, with cutting and


pasting, these things happen and these are warrants

10

that are being prepared not by robots but by human

11

beings and mistakes are to be made and will be made.

12

I realize also that the warrant page, Page 4 of the

13

application affidavit and warrant package, is the

14

only page that the police don't sign.

15

dont sign Page 4.

They sign the application for the

16

warrant on Page 1.

They swear to their affidavit on

17

Pages 2 and 3 usually.

18

maybe one could say that, well, they dont sign that

19

page so its more understandable that there could be

20

a mistake there that the judge is going to have to

21

catch, if anyone will.

22

who prepare the language on the warrant itself for

23

the judge to consider.

24

instance, its the police themselves that must bear

25

the responsibility for the accuracy of the

26

information.

27

The police

They don't sign Page 4.

So

But the police are the ones

So at least in the first

But there's plenty of -- I dont mean to

76
1

highlight just the police errors here because theres

plenty of people who should have caught this.

In addition to their supervisor within the

Connecticut State Police, the warrant was then,

according to the testimony, reviewed by a prosecutor.

While a risk warrant need not be signed by a

prosecutor, its my understanding that this warrant,

and it is consistent with a general practice I think,

which I have some knowledge of a general practice

10

that prosecutors review all search warrants or risk

11

warrants.

12

the States Attorneys Office in Hartford, apparently

13

was tasked with reviewing the proposed risk warrant

14

before it was presented to a judge.

15

least one can assume she did based on the testimony I

16

heard from the witnesses who did testify.

17

have caught the mistake and seen that the language on

18

the warrant page didnt square with the language on

19

the application or the affidavit.

20

And a prosecutor, Attorney Melchiorre at

She did so, at

She should

And just to make sure I identify all that should

21

have caught this, the judge himself should have

22

caught this mistake when he signed the warrant.

23

judge should not have misdated the warrant, either.

24

There was testimony about the judge putting the date

25

down of August 28th rather than August 29th, that

26

should not have happened.

27

The

Now, I don't doubt that the process of obtaining

77
1

this particular risk warrant in this particular case

was proceeding at what is likely to have been an

accelerated pace given the concerns that the police

may have had based on the e-mail.

risk warrant, Connecticut State Police first became

aware of the contents of this e-mail at about 2:30

p.m. on August 28th, and they conducted an

investigation, prepared a risk warrant, as well as an

arrest warrant for a judges execution in less than

According to the

10

24 hours.

11

proceeding at a fairly rapid pace.

12

exigencies of the situation may help to explain why

13

these mistakes happened, they don't ultimately

14

justify the fact that the mistakes occurred.

15

So I don't doubt that this -- things were


But while the

Once the warrant was signed by Judge Mullarkey

16

and the police responded to Mr. Taupier's house to

17

serve it, the police should have been in a position

18

to provide Mr. Taupier with a copy of it.

19

what the statute says they should do and that should

20

have happened.

21

multiple copies were made, I dont believe I need to

22

make a determination.

23

copy can't be produced now and no copy, at least

24

based on what I find, was given to Mr. Taupier at the

25

time.

26
27

Thats

Whether or not a copy was made or

The fact of the matter is a

I accept the testimony and find it credible that


the police generally explained to Mr. Taupier that

78
1

the guns were being seized pursuant to a warrant.

The testimony, as I recall it and which I found

credible, is that Mr. Taupier was cooperative with

the police and may have gone so far as to provide a

combination to a gun safe so that the guns could be

secured without doing damage to the gun safe.

the oral explanation of the authority upon which the

police were conducting their search and seizure is

not the same as providing the defendant a copy of it,

10
11

But

of that warrant, and he should have received it.


And on 9/2 -- and Im continuing to chronicle

12

the shortcomings, Im no longer dealing with the

13

contents of the warrant itself, but rather what

14

transpired at the time of its execution and

15

thereafter.

16

the warrant, then on September 2nd, which based on my

17

calculation is the next business day after the Friday

18

service on August 29th of the warrant, the police

19

were appropriately at that time, on 9/2, preparing to

20

make a return of the warrant to court, as is required

21

by statute, when Trooper DeJesus identified for the

22

first time the defect in the warrant page.

23

defect being the fact that there was a reference to

24

guns registered not to Mr. Taupier but to another

25

person.

26

or was the result of Trooper DeJesuss use of an

27

earlier warrant as a template, that earlier warrant

Having not given the defendant a copy of

That

That mistake had apparently been generated

79
1

having been provided to him by his co-affiant,

Trooper Kateyna (phonetic).

Katrenya, K-A-T-R-E-N-Y-A.

Im sorry; its Trooper


Im sorry.

When Trooper DeJesus on September 2nd identified

this mistake I feel he did the right thing, which was

to take it to his immediate supervisor, to Sergeant

Medinas attention.

Sergeant Medina, what Sergeant Medina did, in the

Courts view, should not have occurred.

And once it was brought to

It is that

10

Sergeant Medina, noting that the wrong name appeared,

11

used a black Sharpie or a black Magic Marker to cross

12

it out and then to write in Mr. Taupier's name and

13

date of birth.

14

I accept the fact that police do routinely make

15

written changes to their reports and initial those

16

changes, but one would have hoped that a sergeant in

17

a supervisory capacity would have recognized the

18

significant difference between a police report and a

19

search warrant, particularly a warrant that had

20

already been signed by a judge and executed by the

21

police.

22

testified that after crossing the information out and

23

handwriting on it he quickly realized his error.

24

I commend Sergeant Medina, frankly, for coming into

25

this court and without hesitation forthrightly

26

admitting that he made a mistake in altering the

27

warrant page.

I appreciate the fact that Sergeant Medina

And

80
1

What he did next seemed to be a prudent step.

Realizing that this alteration should not have been

made, at least without some approval by perhaps the

prosecutor or the judge, he called the -- actually, I

strike that, he walked over with Trooper DeJesus to

the prosecutor's office, which was across the street

from Troop H in Hartford, and he alerted Attorney

Melchiorre to the fact that this defect had been

noted and the alteration that Sergeant Medina had

10

made.

11

a report, reflect the change in a police report, and

12

that she would let Judge Mullarkey know.

13

Ms. Melchiorre indicated that they should make

Sergeant Medina also testified, and I find

14

credible, that he some days later actually re-

15

contacted States Attorney Melchiorre just to confirm

16

that she had alerted Judge Mullarkey to this

17

alteration.

18

Attorney Melchiorre that Judge Mullarkey had been

19

advised, that a report was generated by Trooper

20

DeJesus which reflected that this alteration was

21

made.

22

discussing the fact that the alteration itself was

23

not dated, so when one looked at the warrant it was

24

unclear when the alteration was made.

25

believe, as apparently the defense does, that that

26

was of such great significance in the issue that I

27

now have before me.

And it was after being assured by

I know that the defense spent some time

I do not

81
1

After making the alteration and seeing Attorney

Melchiorre, the police made a return of the warrant,

for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, to the

State's Attorney's Office in Hartford.

clearly says that the warrant should be returned to

the G.A. court in which the search has occurred.

the proper return should have been here to G.A. 9,

since G.A. 9 covers Cromwell where Mr. Taupier lived.

The statute

So

I heard the witness testify that he made the

10

return to the States Attorneys Office in Hartford

11

believing that it would afford Mr. Taupier an

12

opportunity to see it sooner, I didnt quite follow

13

that.

14

been returned to G.A. 9.

15

the states attorneys office.

16

testimony that I recall as to how it got from the

17

states attorneys office back to police, but there

18

was testimony that on the 9th of September police did

19

make proper service -- proper return, rather, to G.A.

20

9 as Troopers DeJesus and the troopers name that

21

began with -- Fratellenico, those troopers appeared

22

to have brought the warrant down here to G.A. 9.

23

the G.A. 9 clerk's office was then able to schedule

24

Mr. Taupiers 29-38c hearing, and that hearing was

25

scheduled for September 9th -- Im sorry, beg your

26

pardon, September 11th.

27

But the fact of the matter is this should have


The police returned it to
There was no

So thats the sequence of events.

And

And as I say,

82
1

it does not paint a flattering picture, but thats

not whats before me now.

whether the events that took place are worthy of

criticism.

suppression is appropriate.

indicated, and for the reasons Ill now explain, I do

not believe the flaws, all be them many in number,

should result in there being suppression of the

evidence the police identified and seized during the

10
11

The question I have is not

The question is whether the remedy of


And as Ive already

execution of the risk warrant.


With regard to the fact that Judge Mullarkey had

12

placed the date of August 28th instead of August 29th

13

on the warrant, I already covered yesterday that

14

subject.

15

that I heard that this was a scriveners error, a

16

technical error, which our law indicates does not

17

undermine the warrants validity and does not trigger

18

the exclusionary rule.

19

reasoning there other than to say that at yesterday's

20

hearing I covered it at greater length.

21

And I believe that based on the evidence

And I wont repeat my

As to the mistake that appeared on the warrant

22

itself, based on the evidence that Ive heard and

23

that I find credible, I conclude that that warrant

24

was flawed in the following way: That the police,

25

having cut and pasted from a warrant that Katreyna

26

had used previously and provided to Trooper DeJesus,

27

while the police changed the names that appeared on

83
1

that earlier warrant and made those changes to the

application, which would be Page 1, and also as to

their affidavit on Page 2 and 3, they failed to make

the necessary change on Page 4, the warrant itself.

Those are my factual findings.

And I find

further, based on the testimony, that what appeared

under the black Magic Marker was the name of another

person who was the subject of a risk warrant and, at

most, that individuals date of birth.

Based on the

10

testimony, I conclude that thats all that Sergeant

11

Medina crossed out.

12

thought the name may have been David Raggazini

13

(phonetic) or something close to that, but my finding

14

is simply that it was a name other than Mr. Taupiers

15

and may have included that other individuals date of

16

birth as well.

17

I know that Trooper DeJesus

But that error, in my view, does not any more

18

than the wrong date, undermine the warrants

19

validity.

20

Connecticut case of State v. Browne, thats with an

21

E, 291 Conn. 720.

22

significant similarities to our case, because like

23

our case it involves a cut and pasting error which

24

led to an affidavit and an application for a warrant

25

that was at odds with the ultimate warrant that was

26

issued by the court.

27

And the key case in my analysis is the

I think the Browne case bears

In Browne the police had made controlled

84
1

purchases of marijuana from Mr. Browne and therefore

sought a search warrant to search Brownes house for

marijuana and paraphernalia related to it.

police, based on the Browne court decision, appeared

to have used another warrant as a template as they

prepared the Browne warrant.

the application for the warrant and they changed --

and I should say that the earlier warrant had been in

a cocaine case.

The

So the first page is

So what they did was they used the

10

cocaine search warrant as a template, but the case

11

that Browne was involved in was a marijuana case.

12

the police did change the front -- the first page,

13

the application, so it clearly referred to marijuana

14

and not cocaine, they made that change.

15

prepared their affidavit to say that they had

16

probable cause to believe that marijuana would be

17

found, because thats what the controlled buys had

18

involved, marijuana not cocaine.

19

failed to do, which is exactly what DeJesus failed to

20

do, is make a similar change to Page 4, the warrant

21

page.

22

So

They also

But what they

So what was involved in Browne was an affidavit

23

and an application that made reference to marijuana

24

and a warrant that authorized the seizure of cocaine.

25

Our Supreme Court held in Browne, reversing the

26

Appellate Courts decision, that this flaw in the

27

warrant was ultimately a scrivener's error, a

85
1

technical error, that did not warrant the suppression

of the evidence.

part on language that appeared in the warrant that

expressly incorporated the application for the

warrant and the affidavit.

was discussed in that decision at some considerable

length, and it has equal application here.

Browne tells me to do, in reviewing this, is to not

only look at what the -- well, strike that.

That decision relied in significant

This incorporation theory

What

What I

10

should do is look at everything the warrant says, not

11

just the information that the police may have filled

12

in on the warrant page.

13

And what the risk warrant says in our case, on

14

Page 4 after the heading, Search and Seizure Warrant,

15

Im quoting from Page 4, it says, the foregoing

16

affidavit and application for search and seizure

17

warrant for a firearm, having been presented to and

18

been considered by the undersigned, a judge of the

19

Superior Court, the undersigned A) is satisfied

20

therefrom that grounds exist for said application and

21

B) finds that said affidavit established grounds and

22

probable cause for the undersigned to issue this

23

search and seizure warrant, such probable cause being

24

the following: From said affidavit the undersigned

25

finds that there is probable cause for the

26

undersigned to believe the above named person poses a

27

risk of imminent personal injury to himself/herself

86
1

or to other individuals, the above named person

possesses one or more firearms, such firearms are

within or upon the place, thing or person named in

the foregoing application and affidavit, and Im

eliminating some language here, and that, therefore,

a search and seizure warrant should issue for said

firearms.

Now, that first paragraph of the warrant clearly

incorporates, in my opinion in the same way it did in

10

Browne, the affidavit and the application, as it

11

makes repeated reference to both to the judges

12

review of the affidavit and application, the fact

13

that the application is well-founded, that the

14

affidavit establishes probable cause, and the

15

repeated reference to the phrase the above named

16

person most clearly has to be read in the context of

17

the application and affidavit because the warrant

18

itself does not have an above named person, only the

19

application does on Page 1.

20

clearly an incorporation and allows the Court to make

21

a finding that the flaw on the warrant is a

22

scrivener's error, just as the court did in Browne.

23

The warrant continues to command police to

24

search the place, and I quote, search the place

25

described in the foregoing affidavit and application,

26

closed quote.

27

application is yet another incorporation, although

So that paragraph is

So the foregoing affidavit and

87
1

the police did on this warrant properly indicate that

the location that was to be searched was the

residence of Edward Taupier and it then describes the

way the home looks and gives its address in Cromwell.

And the warrant goes on to indicate that police are

authorized by the warrant to search that location,

and I quote, for the property described in the

forgoing affidavit and application, closed quote.

there is another specific reference to the documents

10

So

that are attached to the warrant itself.

11

Now, it is true that the flaw comes on the

12

warrant when the police then filling out, after the

13

introductory phrase, to wit, in their effort to

14

identify the property that theyre being authorized

15

to search the Cromwell home of Mr. Taupier for, they

16

write the following: To wit: any, and Im quoting,

17

any and all firearms and/or ammunition located within

18

the residence.

19

and Firearms Unit Database show the following guns

20

registered to.

21

deleted and Mr. Taupier's name and date of birth

22

inserted instead.

23

on the evidence that I heard, that what appears under

24

the cross out is another individuals and perhaps his

25

or her date of birth, thats the change the police

26

made.

27

A check of the CSP Special Licensing

And that is where the information is

So the Court having found, based

But I think the language that follows the to

88
1

wit needs to be analyzed closely.

Because I think

this is actually a case in which exclusion of the

evidence is less warranted than maybe one could argue

in the Browne circumstance, because this search and

seizure warrant repeatedly references firearms.

the judge indicates that there is probable cause to

believe the defendant possess one or more firearms,

and these firearms are what the police are being

authorized to seize.

And

And the first sentence of the

10

to wit reads, any and all firearms and/or

11

ammunition located within the residence.

12

can be no question, at least in my mind, that the

13

police knew that they were being authorized to seize

14

the Cromwell home of Mr. Taupier for any and all

15

firearms.

16

And there

The fact that the police chose to thereafter

17

reiterate that there were certain guns registered to

18

Mr. Taupier in a later sentence was not limiting the

19

authority of the police to seize all guns.

20

purpose of this warrant was to seize all guns based

21

on the judges belief that there was probable cause

22

that Mr. Taupier, based on the alleged threats that

23

he made in the e-mail, posed a risk of imminent

24

personal injury to another person.

25

were authorized to seize all the firearms and

26

ammunition in the home.

27

many ways can be viewed as unnecessary language,

The

So the police

So the flawed language in

89
1

surplusage if you will, which did not narrow the

broader authorization reflected throughout the

warrant, the application and the affidavit to seize

any and all firearms in the house.

Now, the mistake is there.

Im not minimizing

that, and my comments before I think adequately

communicate my disappointment that this wasnt --

that the mistake was made and wasnt caught.

dont think that that mistake has undermined the

But I

10

validity of the warrant.

11

statute, 29-38c, and the purpose of this warrant, was

12

to seize all guns both for Mr. Taupiers protection

13

and for the protection of others.

14

even with the flawed language on it, this is prior to

15

its alteration, was still a valid warrant.

16

I meant by that, this was a warrant that authorized

17

in a constitutionally sound manner the police to go

18

to Mr. Taupier's home in Cromwell and enter it and

19

seize the guns and ammunition that they found within

20

it.

21

testimony that I found credible, that this mistake in

22

the language of the warrant did not impact the

23

warrant's validity nor does that flaw justify the

24

application of the exclusionary rule.

25

The purpose of this

So this warrant,

And what

So I conclude, as a matter of law, based on the

Now, as to what happened in the alteration,

26

there certainly was an effort to change the contents

27

of this.

That should not have been done.

But the

90
1

question is not what should and shouldnt have been

done but more precisely what the remedy should be or

the sanction should be for the fact that it was done.

The police did not make this change and thereafter

hide or attempt to camouflage their action.

sergeant quickly realized that he should not have

altered this and realized that he had made a mistake,

he went to the prosecutor and received the

prosecutors assurance that the judge would be

When the

10

notified and that a report would be made reflecting

11

what that police had done.

12

As I see it, I've already held that the warrant

13

was valid with the mistake and that the police were

14

authorized to enter Mr. Taupiers home on the

15

afternoon of the 29th of August and to seize guns

16

pursuant to the risk warrant.

17

me to put the police in a worse position for having

18

made the change that they did, disclosing it to the

19

prosecutor, confirming the judge was made aware of it

20

and then preparing a report about it.

21

be in a worse position than if they had never caught

22

the mistake because this alteration occurs after the

23

fact of the search itself.

24

was valid in the sense that the defendants

25

constitutional rights were not violated on the 29th,

26

I can't see how the police action on the 2nd of

27

September can change the constitutionality of the

There is no reason for

They shouldnt

So if the search itself

91
1

search that happened three days before.

feel its appropriate to put the police in a worse

position then if they just left it alone and let the

mistake survive, particularly since they were up

front about it in the ways that Ive just identified.

And I don't

So since Ive concluded that the mistake itself

doesn't warrant the exclusion of the firearms, then

the mistake plus an effort, fully disclosed, to

correct the mistake doesn't warrant exclusion of

10

evidence either.

11

a large portion of the testimony in this case, but

12

ultimately I conclude that the post-search behavior

13

of the police is of relatively little significance,

14

and may actually be of no significance, in my

15

determination as to whether there was a lawful basis

16

for the police to be in the defendants house on

17

August 29th.

18

basis and Mr. Taupiers constitutional rights were

19

not violated, I don't think that his rights were any

20

more violated by the police action on September 2nd.

21

I know that this redaction consumed

Having concluded there was a lawful

And I, frankly, feel similarly with regard to

22

the fact that the defendant was not provided a copy

23

of this warrant at the time of its execution.

24

feel similarly as well with regard to the evidence

25

that the police made, at least initially, an improper

26

return of the warrant to court.

27

do not, in my opinion, rise to a constitutional level

And I

Those shortcomings

92
1

sufficient to justify the application of the

exclusionary rule.

be provided a copy of the warrant, the requirement

that the police return the warrant to court, in my

view are ministerial acts which do not have a

constitutional underpinning and therefore

noncompliance with those statutory requirements are

an insufficient basis upon which to trigger the

application of the exclusionary rule, which is a

10
11

The requirement that a defendant

creature of the Fourth Amendment alone.


I note that there is no Connecticut case, at

12

least that I could find, that holds that the failure

13

to leave a copy of a warrant or an improper or

14

untimely return of a warrant to court is a Fourth

15

Amendment violation.

16

I did uncover I think would raise significant

17

question as to whether or not these types of

18

shortcomings should be viewed within the lens of the

19

exclusionary rule.

20

To the contrary, the cases that

The State cited a Superior Court decision, which

21

I found in my research of State v. Baba, B-A-B-A.

22

That Superior Court decision, and some cited within

23

it, hold that these types of defects are not of a

24

constitutionally significant nature and do not

25

warrant suppression of the evidence seized, at least

26

in the absence of prejudice.

27

There are other cases as well.

A case of State

93
1

v. Mancinone, M-A-N-C-I-N-O-N-E, at 15 Conn. App.

That case in Footnote 7 raises the question of

whether or not a technical violation would require

suppression of the evidence under 54-33c.

in this footnote, or Mancinone I guess it is,

indicates that the defendant assumed that would be

the case.

that is not at all clear.

that the courts do not seem to be of the opinion that

Mancinone

But the court, the Appellate Court, said


So I think that signals

10

these technical violations should result in so

11

punitive a sanction as suppression.

12

And that is the same type of suggestion one gets

13

in reading the Thompson decision.

14

earlier, or yesterday anyway, because it notes that

15

the Fourth Amendment only requires three things; that

16

the warrant be signed by a neutral magistrate, that

17

the warrant contain probable cause, and that the

18

warrant satisfy the particularity requirement of the

19

Fourth Amendment.

20

prerequisites to a constitutionally sound warrant,

21

and therefore it would be only those warrants that

22

fail in one of those three areas where the

23

exclusionary rule would apply.

24

I cited that

Those are the only three

So based on my reading of the law, I do not

25

believe that the failure to provide a copy to Mr.

26

Taupier at the time of the execution nor the improper

27

or untimely return of that warrant to court are the

94
1

types of defects that invalidate what I have already

concluded to be an otherwise valid warrant.

that makes sense because, obviously, with regard to

the return of the warrant to court, the defendant's

rights were either violated or were not violated in a

constitutional sense on August 29th when the police

entered his home.

violation occurred or didnt.

found that there was a valid warrant and therefore,

To me

That's when a constitutional


Now, I have already

10

Mr. Taupiers rights were not violated when the

11

police entered his home on August 29th.

12

that the police didn't return the warrant to the

13

right place didnt make the police entry to his home

14

any different than it was.

15

to the return of the warrant I dont see how that

16

could invalidate an otherwise valid warrant executed

17

days earlier.

18

The fact

So certainly with regard

The giving of the copy, certainly the statute

19

requires it and there is a discussion of that, I

20

believe, in one of the decisions, one of the

21

Connecticut decisions.

22

notice provision that the defendant should be able to

23

read the warrant, that idea has not been accepted by

24

the Connecticut Court.

25

often cited for that proposition may be the Groh

26

case, G-R-O-H.

27

Groh case is of limited precedential value.

The idea that that is a

I believe the case that is

But our Supreme Court thinks that the


So the

95
1

failure to be provided a copy of the warrant, to give

the defendant a copy of the warrant at the time of

execution, in my view does not trigger the

exclusionary rule.

So that leaves us -- well, let me just say one

thing before I get to our last couple of points.

Ive considered, but also ultimately rejected, the

defendants claim which was advocated most clearly

today, that the defendant was prejudiced by the

10

failure of the police to complete these ministerial

11

acts.

12

would be if the defendant was never afforded his

13

hearing within 14 days.

14

entitled to a hearing in 14 days; hes entitled to

15

have counsel represent him at the hearing.

16

hearing was scheduled for September 11th, which was

17

within 14 days of August 29th, and the defendant was

18

represented by Attorney Schoenhorn on that date and

19

at that hearing.

20

that the hearing would not go forward, that was with

21

the agreement of the defendant.

22

waived his right to have the hearing on 9/11, but he

23

was afforded his right to it.

24

The only claim for prejudice that I can see

The statute says hes

This

It was agreed on September 11th

So the defendant

There was a claim raised, I think by Attorney

25

Baird, that at any time prior to the hearing the

26

defendant would have been able to have the guns

27

transferred to someone else.

Im not so sure that

96
1

thats what 29-38c says, and I think the State

mentioned its disagreement with Attorney Bairds

reading.

gun owner the right to transfer the guns to a person

eligible to possess firearms is subparagraph e.

it says, any person whose firearms and ammunition

have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection d.

Subsection d doesn't refer to the initial seizure

that occurs at the time of the execution of the

10

warrant, but subsection d refers to the seizure

11

that -- or the extended seizure that occurs at the

12

hearing, after the 14 day hearing occurs.

The subsection of 29-38c that provides the

And

13

So its not clear to me that the defendant would

14

have been entitled in that 14-day period prior to the

15

hearing on 9/11 to demand that the guns held by the

16

police be turned over to an authorized possessor.

17

But in any event, the defendant waived his right to a

18

hearing and I don't think that theres any real

19

prejudice to him that would in some way warrant

20

suppression in this case.

21

That leaves us, at least according to my

22

scorecard, with the final issue being Judge

23

Mullarkey's neutrality and whether or not in signing

24

the risk warrant Judge Mullarkey was a neutral

25

magistrate.

26

types of evidence.

27

defense in transcripts, which I'm accepting over the

The defense's claim consists of two


The first is provided by the

97
1

State's objection even though they werent

technically introduced.

defense claims, demonstrate that Judge Mullarkey was

not neutral.

These transcripts, the

So the first thing that I did was to review

these transcript excerpts, and I did invite Attorney

Baird to provide me any pages that provided the basis

for her claim.

11th, 2013.

The first transcript is dated July

So that this record is complete, its

10

the defense's position here that Judge Mullarkeys

11

lack of neutrality was evidenced in the matter of

12

State v. Peterson, which was tried in Rockville about

13

13

14

risk warrant in question.

15

in which Attorney Baird represented Mr. Peterson.

16

months prior to Judge Mullarkeys review of the


The Peterson case was one

The first transcript I was provided is an

17

excerpt from jury selection that was occurring on

18

July 11th, 2013.

19

21 appears to me to be the following: It appears from

20

what I read on Pages 19 through 21 that Attorney

21

Baird had in some filing given notice to the

22

prosecutor in the case and to the court of Attorney

23

Baird's intent to call expert testimony in the

24

Peterson case.

25

Baird, in what I think is the first important line,

26

We are going to get expert testimony?

27

answers, It depends.

And the context of Pages 19 through

The court at Line 18 asks Attorney

Attorney Baird

And Im not going to read it

98
1

verbatim, but she, Attorney Baird said, It depends, I

just want to provide notice of potential witnesses.

This is referring to experts.

Now, Judge Mullarkey then says at Line 23, You

know we just had a lawyer come up here, claim to be

an expert on trial practice and testify against

Mickey Sherman.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

take it that Judge Mullarkey is perhaps poking some

10

fun at an unnamed expert that may have testified in

11

another case that was going on in Rockville, and that

12

Judge Mullarkey actually next poked fun at himself to

13

say that if that individual was an expert that Judge

14

Mullarkey was Oliver Wendell Holmes.

15

initial comment.

16

I said if he is an expert, I am
So in those comments I

So that was the

Now, turning to Page 20, the parties go back and

17

forth on whether or not there should be testimony

18

about guns.

19

that Peterson case that guns or the legality of gun

20

possession was not an issue; Attorney Baird felt

21

otherwise and felt gun ownership was an issue in the

22

case.

23

indicated to Attorney Baird, You know, I realize that

24

youve cut a niche on this.

25

continues on 13 through 15 to say, in essence, but

26

I'm as yet to figure out whether youre going to be

27

Annie Oakley or Bonnie Parker.

The State appears to be of the view in

Judge Mullarkey at Line 10 on Page 20

And Judge Mullarkey then

99
1

It then appears to me that, based on what

happens next, that the expert who Attorney Baird

identified as a possible witness in the case was

going to be Mr. Peruta, her investigator, who I

suspect in that case may have also been appearing as

a possible expert.

Mullarkey, used to have a TV show.

Baird if she knew that and Attorney Baird answered, I

have been made aware of that.

Mr. Peruta, according to Judge


He asked Attorney

Judge Mullarkey then

10

points out that he used to watch it too and it was,

11

sounds to me, like a community access show that Mr.

12

Peruta might have been on with another individual.

13

They talk about that.

14

shows no longer on the air, Your Honor.

15

Judge Mullarkey says, Well, if he -- presumably

16

Peruta -- is ever going to testify maybe theres some

17

old DVDs of his show.

18

all go through various -- I think theres a word

19

missing here -- we all go through various stages in

20

of our life, the word stages doesnt appear in the

21

transcript, but I suspect something like that was

22

said.

23

some fun at Judge Mullarkey in his direction says to

24

Judge Mullarkey, I was once a prosecutor in front of

25

you.

26

wouldn't bring that up.

27

Attorney Baird says that the


And then

Attorney Baird then says, We

And Attorney Baird, I think perhaps poking

To which Judge Mullarkey responds, Yeah, I

So theres certainly some give and take between

100
1

Judge Mullarkey and Attorney Baird, which continues

on Page 146 through 147.

Mullarkey and Attorney Baird are apparently

discussing some area of inquiry that Attorney Baird

wanted to direct toward prospective jurors to

ascertain the jurors views about guns and gun

ownership.

trying to think of an analogy that she could use.

She suggested she was thinking about using a medical

10

marijuana hypothetical to maybe elicit opinions from

11

the jury that would assist Attorney Baird in making

12

selections.

13

In that case Judge

Attorney Baird indicates that she was

And it was within that context, I suspect, of

14

questioning about guns and gun ownership that Judge

15

Mullarkey at Line 22 on 146 says to Attorney Baird,

16

Now, you probably haven't read the University of

17

California Law Review on the hidden history of the

18

Second Amendment.

19

has not.

20

will let Attorney Baird read his copy.

21

Baird, I think, responds appropriately by saying, I

22

think I function at a more basic level than law

23

review articles on most days unfortunately -- I

24

suspect singing the plight of the busy defense

25

attorney and gives some of it back to Judge

26

Mullarkey.

27

Attorney Baird answers that she

And the judge indicates that he perhaps


Attorney

And that's the end of that.

I suspect its somewhere after that exchange

101
1

that Mr. Peruta was prepared to testify here that

Judge Mullarkey made the statement, which Im

accepting for purposes of the argument to have been

made, and that is that Judge Mullarkey, once the

court reporter had gone off the record, indicated

something to the effect that anyone who supported the

Second Amendment should be ashamed.

the record.

Thats not in

The only other transcript I have is from July

10

12th.

11

July 12th the parties were discussing on the record

12

in front of Judge Mullarkey the fact that there was a

13

motion filed by Attorney Baird, I suspect somewhat

14

late in the game, for which there needed to be

15

evidence.

16

to start as well and Attorney Baird was reporting to

17

the court that a witness that she needed for the

18

hearing on her motion, pre-trial motion, and also who

19

could be a necessary witness at the trial, was on

20

vacation in Wyoming.

21

first one to tell Judge Mullarkey that this witness,

22

whos apparently a detective with the Vernon Police

23

Department, was in Wyoming.

24

apparently had learned the same thing from the chief

25

of police in Vernon and the court pointed out that if

26

he doesn't come back soon were going to have a

27

problem.

This is somewhat more brief.

Apparently on

It sounds like the trial was about ready

Frankly, the prosecutor is the

Attorney Baird

102
1

And the judge then, I think, pokes some fun at

people who are from Wyoming by saying to the

prosecutor, Where is he in Wyoming, referring to the

detective.

the court says, do they have phones, and then

commented on what could be spotty cell coverage

there.

there would be a problem unless the parties agreed to

some stipulation because the witness, this detective,

The prosecutor said, I dont know.

And

But it became clear to Judge Mullarkey that

10

might not have been back in time.

11

assist Ms. Baird, invited the prosecutor to perhaps

12

meet with Ms. Baird to see if they could come up with

13

an agreement as to what the detective did and said.

14

But then Attorney Baird pointed out that this was

15

going to be an on-going problem even if they could

16

get through the motion because the witness was going

17

to be one that Attorney Baird might have to call at

18

the trial.

19

to Attorney Baird, Well, I'm sure you must have a lot

20

of contacts in Wyoming.

21

He, frankly to

The judge then says at Page 3 on Line 9

So thats the sum and substance of the evidence

22

from which the defense claims that Judge Mullarkey

23

was not a neutral magistrate when he signed the risk

24

warrant.

25

comment that Mr. Peruta would have talked about,

26

which according to Mr. Peruta Judge Mullarkey

27

expressed his sentiments regarding those who

Now, except for the single off-the-record

103
1

supported the Second Amendment, everything else that

appears of record, in my view, involves a give and

take between Judge Mullarkey and Attorney Baird that

has little, if anything, to do with guns or the

Second Amendment.

Theres a footnote, I believe, in Attorney

Bairds supplemental motion in which she adds further

that Judge Mullarkey at one point indicated that

because he knew that Attorney Baird went to Yale Law

10

School that he, Judge Mullarkey, would speak slowly.

11

The way I read all of this is that it is at worst

12

some ribbing which may not be viewed as good natured

13

by Attorney Baird, but thats how I view it.

14

well be a reason that Attorney Baird may prefer to --

15

may opt not to appear before Judge Mullarkey, but

16

thats not what my issue is.

17

It may

My issue is whether or not when Judge Mullarkey

18

signed a warrant on August 29th of 2014, 13 months

19

after these events occurred and the statements were

20

made, that he was not a neutral magistrate.

21

there's no evidence that Judge Mullarkey knew or

22

would have had any reason to expect that the warrant

23

he was looking at which involved a gentleman named

24

Edward Taupier had anything to do with Attorney

25

Baird.

26

Mr. Taupier at the time.

27

case may have been pending at that point, Im not

Now,

In fact, Attorney Baird wasnt representing


Mr. Taupiers voyeurism

104
1

sure right now whether it was or not, but if it was

his counsel of record was John Donovan not Attorney

Baird.

Mullarkey even endeavored to find out whether or not

Mr. Taupier had other pending cases.

Theres no evidence before me that Judge

It would be fair to assume that Judge Mullarkey

in reading the risk affidavit concluded that Mr.

Taupier had a family case pending, but Attorney Baird

wasn't representing Mr. Taupier in that.

And,

10

frankly, the officers who testified about bringing

11

the warrant to Judge Mullarkey said they walked into

12

Judge Mullarkey, they had seen Vicki Melchiorre

13

first, theres no evidence that they had alerted

14

Judge Mullarkey to the fact that they were coming

15

with a warrant on Edward Taupier.

16

reviewed it and signed it in their presence.

17

was no testimony that he said, hold on, guys, I want

18

to go see who represents Mr. Taupier in the family

19

case.

20

Mullarkey knew that this would ultimately be Attorney

21

Baird's case.

22

originally represented by John Donovan then by

23

Jefferson Jelly then by Attorney Schoenhorn, and only

24

some time thereafter, I believe at the beginning of

25

October but I could be wrong, by Attorney Baird.

26

to the extent that there could be some issues

27

involving the relationship between Attorney Baird and

Judge Mullarkey
There

So theres reason to think that Judge

And, in fact, Mr. Taupier was

So

105
1

Judge Mullarkey, that could not have impacted on

Judge Mullarkeys neutrality in signing this.

As far as Judge Mullarkeys comment regarding

those who supported the Second Amendment and assuming

just for purposes of the argument today that that

statement was made.

guess in the defense view, with Judge Mullarkeys

reference to the California Law Review and what Ill

accept is this article by Professor Bogus about

That would go hand in hand, I

10

Professor Boguss view of the Fourth Amendment -- of

11

the Second Amendment, rather.

12

the defendant's claim that the fact that Judge

13

Mullarkey had read a scholarly piece about Second

14

Amendment law and at worst expressed some feelings

15

about the correctness of Professor Boguss view, and

16

the incorrectness of the contrary view, that those

17

facts alone are sufficient to bring into question on

18

an objective basis Judge Mullarkeys neutrality.

19

reject that in its entirety.

20

an objective assessment one would question Judge

21

Mullarkeys impartiality or neutrality based on that

22

statement.

23

It seems to me to be

I do not feel that on

My decision in this regard is informed by cases

24

such as the one cited by Attorney Hans, State v.

25

Montini at 52 Conn. App.

26

was nationally known as a zealous advocate of the

27

rights of children who were victims of crime.

That involved the judge who

106
1

defendant who was charged with a crime of that nature

and who learned that judge would be presiding over

the trial, sought to have the judge disqualify

himself because of the judges opinions about child

victims and his advocacy on their behalf.

Appellate Court held that that was an inadequate

basis to seek the judges disqualification.

8
9

Our

Another important case is Papa v. New Haven


Federation of Teachers at 186 Conn.

In that case the

10

judge had made comments of a general nature

11

criticizing illegal teacher strikes.

12

that generally, not in the context of a case that

13

later came before him.

14

generally.

15

made, the Supreme Court held that those general

16

comments he made that viewed teacher strikes as

17

illegal did not disqualify him from later sitting on

18

a case involving a teacher strike.

He had done

But he made those comments

And as to those general comments that he

19

With Papa and Montini being the state of the

20

law, there is no basis upon which I can find that

21

Judge Mullarkey was not acting as a neutral

22

magistrate as required by the Fourth Amendment.

23

These comments, brief as they were, occurred 13

24

months earlier and they did not specifically regard

25

this case.

26

on August 29th that did not require him to assess the

27

Second Amendments meaning, but only to assess

Judge Mullarkey reviewed a risk warrant

107
1

whether the affidavit he reviewed presented probable

cause.

In my view the defense has not met its burden of

showing that Judge Mullarkey did not act as a neutral

magistrate.

statement regarding Second Amendment supporters, that

Judge Mullarkey would have thought it no big deal to

just take someones guns away.

falls entirely within the area of unsupported and

10

unverified assertions of opinion, speculation and

11

conjecture, and does not provide a basis to grant the

12

motion to suppress.

13

motion to suppress and Im denying it for the reasons

14

Ive stated.

15

The claim seems to be that, given his

That, in my opinion,

So thats my ruling on the

And that brings us, and thank you all for your

16

patience, but this was -- there were a lot of issues,

17

but we still have finally to discuss the

18

admissibility of the guns and the evidence of the

19

alleged voyeurism.

20

this was argued today Ive mentioned that I think

21

what I have to do is to assess first the relevance of

22

this evidence and then, assuming there is relevance

23

found, I then have to balance the probative value of

24

the evidence against the prejudicial effect.

25

have, again as a general principle, have to make sure

26

that I do not allow this jury to get distracted from

27

its primary obligations in this case, and that is

In my remarks to the lawyers as

I also

108
1

always a risk when contested collateral issues create

a trial within a trial.

Now, Krijger does, as Ive indicated earlier

today, to me stand for the proposition that the State

is entitled to introduce evidence that demonstrates

that a defendant charged with making a true threat --

excuse me -- possesses the wherewithal to carry that

threat out.

that when a threat is made, that the determination as

Krijger also stands for the proposition

10

to whether or not that language constitutes a true

11

threat requires the jury to view the threat and to

12

consider how recipients of the threat reacted.

13

So the evidence that I'm now discussing; the

14

guns, ammunition, magazines on the one hand, and the

15

evidence that the State seeks to offer concerning

16

Judge Bozzuto's knowledge that the defendant had been

17

charged with surreptitiously filming his wife and

18

uploading that video, I have to decide whether or not

19

A) that evidence is relevant under the confines of

20

Krijger and then B) even if it is relevant, whether

21

its prejudice outweighs its probative effect.

22

already earlier today pointed out how significant I

23

think Footnote 11 of Krijger is, and with Footnote 11

24

in mind Ill turn to these two areas of evidence and

25

conclude my decision.

26
27

Ive

First, with regard to the evidence that Mr.


Taupier was a -- well, that goes to the offer that

109
1

would be made through Judge Bozzuto that she was

aware that Mr. Taupier filmed, had surreptitiously

filmed his wife and uploaded it: Im excluding that

in its entirety.

Footnote 11 of Krijger in the second paragraph

of Footnote 11.

I think, it talks about the fact

that some -- there are certain types of evidence that

do not generally bear on ones level of violence.

Footnote 11 of Krijger, the second paragraph

10

discusses the fact that Mr. Kepple in Krijger wanted

11

to testify or maybe did testify that he feared the

12

defendant was, quote, capable of anything, closed

13

quote, in light of Krijger's repeated violation of

14

town zoning regs.

15

Kepple said he was afraid because if Krijger was

16

willing to let his property become devalued he would

17

be capable of anything, including doing harm to Mr.

18

Kepple.

19

suffice it to say that we do not believe that a

20

persons tendency to hoard or accumulate junk,

21

however bizarre such behavior may seem to others,

22

gives rise to a reasonable inference that the person

23

is capable of murder or other violent misconduct.

The sum and substance was that

But the court rejected that saying, quote,

24

Thats how I feel with regard to this evidence

25

the State wants to offer concerning Judge Bozzuto's

26

knowledge or belief that Mr. Taupier may have engaged

27

in this behavior of taping his wife.

Even if I were

110
1

to assume that behavior did take place, and however

bizarre I may find that behavior to be, I dont think

its any more relevant -- its no more relevant on

the issue of the defendants violence than that that

was at issue in Krijger.

Judge Bozzuto felt was creepy, to use the word that

weve been harping on, but that to me is not

sufficiently relevant.

It may be behavior that

Im also concerned about injecting a collateral

10

issue which is hotly contested by Mr. Taupier.

11

would create a trial within a trial; it would

12

distract the jury.

13

value of that evidence is outweighed by the

14

prejudicial effect because if Judge Bozzuto felt that

15

it was creepy behavior, then there is reason to think

16

jurors might feel the same way and the defendant

17

should not be convicted on the basis of that

18

hes to be convicted he should be convicted on the

19

basis of the law and the elements of the crimes here.

20

It

And ultimately the probative

So that is excluded.

If

I will not allow testimony at

21

this trial -- and, Attorney Baird, what Im doing

22

here is Im actually ruling on the motions in

23

limine -- so none of thats coming in.

24

The guns I see differently, but not entirely as

25

the State sees it.

I do think the guns, the

26

defendants possession of guns, is relevant because

27

this particular e-mail not only threatens violence to

111
1

Judge Bozzuto, but threatens a shooting.

So pursuant

to Krijger, the defendants wherewithal to carry out

that threat is relevant and his possession of guns at

or around the time this e-mail was sent would

therefore be relevant.

defendant's possession of guns is not subject to

significant dispute and it wont inject collateral

issues; because I suspect the State is going to

present the evidence from the officers that executed

Importantly too, the

10

the warrant, the risk warrant, on the 29th.

11

unlike the surreptitious filming of the wife, I don't

12

see this to be as distracting an issue and its far

13

more probative.

So

14

Now, having said that evidence of guns is

15

relevant, that still leaves the question of whether

16

or not the prejudicial value of the guns outweighs

17

that probative evidence.

18

this case that if I allow the State to, in essence,

19

parade in who knows how many guns, with each of them

20

being more dangerous looking than the next, that the

21

defendant may be prejudiced to a degree greater than

22

the probative value of these guns.

23

that the defendants possession of guns is not

24

relevant, it is, and probative.

25

whatever these guns look like is not all that

26

probative.

27

introduce the guns themselves into evidence.

I think there is a risk in

That doesnt mean

But, frankly,

So I'm not going to allow the State to

112
1

What is relevant and sufficiently probative in

my opinion is that the guns were available to the

defendant.

as to what was discovered in Mr. Taupiers home when

the risk warrant was executed on August 29th.

jury will then hear that the defendant had the

wherewithal to carry out the threat without creating

a risk that theyre going to see an arsenal of guns

and draw a conclusion based less on the words that

So a witness will be permitted to testify

10

are the heart of this case and more on the

11

defendants possession of the guns.

12

testify to them.

13

The

So a witness can

Attorney Baird argued before that it may --

14

whats the relevance that theres 12 -- I forget --

15

15 guns in the house, whats the relevance if its 15

16

or 14, and I think there's something persuasive in

17

that as well. It doesnt require 15 guns to carry out

18

this -- it doesnt require the jury to know the

19

defendant had 15 guns and thereby had the wherewithal

20

to carry out the threat.

21

seems to me and what Ill allow is the fact that the

22

police entered the home and found a number of

23

firearms.

24

number of high -- large-capacity magazines, it

25

doesn't matter how many there are.

26

witness say a number of firearms were found in the

27

house and that a number of high-capacity magazines

The fact that he -- it

The police can also say they found a

So Ill let a

113
1

were found in the house.

There is no reason for the

jury to know that the defendant was found with over

10,000 rounds of ammunition.

State would agree that if the defendant was going to

commit this crime, then he wouldnt need 10,000

rounds.

well.

in the same way that a number of firearms and a

number of high-capacity magazines gets it across.

I take it that the

So that neednt be admitted to the jury as

A quantity of ammunition gets the point across

10

But I will be eliminating the risk that the jurys

11

going to be inflamed by or overwhelmed by the look of

12

these guns or just feel that anyone with an arsenal

13

must be a danger, because thats not what the law

14

says.

15

I am also inclined to allow the State to call an

16

expert who will be able to testify that one or more

17

of the guns found were capable or was capable of the

18

type of firing or shot that is described in the e-

19

mail.

20

the States desire to introduce evidence about the

21

defendant's experience with or skill level with guns.

22

Im not in a position to rule on that, but frankly,

23

Ill have to hear what it is to make a judgment on

24

that.

25

Im hearing only today for the first time of

The question as to the court stipulation from

26

March of 2013 in which the defendant had agreed not

27

to possess weapons and to turn them over to Mr.

114
1

Satula, I don't think I can rule on that in an in

limine way. It may well turn on what Judge Bozzuto

knew or didnt know or any other recipient of the e-

mail.

referring now to any of the people to whom the e-mail

was sent by Mr. Taupier, if their assessment of the

seriousness of the threat was informed by their

knowledge that the defendant wasnt supposed to have

any guns, I may find it relevant, I may not.

If other recipients of the e-mail, and Im

If

10

Judge Bozzuto knew that he had signed an agreement

11

not to have guns and the police found guns in the

12

house and it heightened her trepidation it may be

13

permitted as well.

14

the testimony is before I can decide whether the

15

March '13 stip comes in or doesnt come in.

16

But I have to wait and hear what

I feel the same way about the guns that were in

17

Satula's possession.

I had initially been prepared

18

to rule that the guns in Satulas possession were not

19

going to be permitted, no evidence of that was coming

20

in.

21

I was initially inclined not to allow in any

22

reference to what police seized from Satula because

23

Satula was supposed to be holding Mr. Taupiers guns

24

pursuant to the stipulation in the family court.

25

I was initially inclined to keep that out in its

26

entirety.

27

that the State may be offering evidence that in the

Im not letting the guns in no matter what, but

So

However, today for the first time, I hear

115
1

week -- or at or around the time that the e-mail was

sent, the defendant was going to Satula and saying,

give me my guns back.

then there may be some significance to that and the

probative value of that evidence may outweigh the

prejudice.

in an in limine manner on the Satula guns.

8
9

And if thats what happened,

So try as I might, Im not able to rule

But just so its clear, if I do allow testimony


concerning the guns taken from Satula, and I trust

10

its going to require Mr. Satula to testify, Im not

11

going to let Mr. Satulas -- those guns that were

12

held by Satula are not going to come into evidence

13

any more than the guns taken from Mr. Taupier on the

14

29th are.

15

guns, Ill have to hear what people say once we get

16

to that point.

17

Whether testimony is allowed about the

And as to the extent to which the jury is going

18

to learn of the family court stipulation, Ive got to

19

see what it is that the recipients say and, frankly,

20

what the State claims is the relevance of it.

21

All right.

I believe I have covered everything.

22

All of the issues that have come up over the course

23

of the last couple of days.

24
25
26
27

Attorney Baird, is there anything that you think


Ive left out?
ATTY. BAIRD:

The issue of the address in the

September 19th, 2014 search and seizure warrant.

116
1

THE COURT:

Well, why -- I guess the question I

have is, Im not -- one of the advantages, frankly,

of my ruling is, at least from my point of view, is

this.

case was, as I see it, postwarrant execution.

if these guns had been returned to you because of the

State's decision to withdraw the warrant, a witness

who entered the house on the 29th with a warrant

would be able to come into court and say, this is

The prejudice that you claim occurred in this

10

what I saw.

11

State do.

12

Even

And thats all that Im letting the

So to the extent you feel that those guns, and

13

this was what I understand your claim was, those guns

14

should not have been available to the State to seize

15

them as evidence as opposed to under the risk

16

warrant, Im not letting the State take advantage of

17

that.

18

have witnesses testify to what they saw.

19

expert can explain the capacities of the magazines,

20

the capabilities of the firearms, but the jury is not

21

going to get a parade of guns because, Attorney

22

Baird, you may disagree with a lot of what Ive ruled

23

but I will say this.

24

all that if 15 or maybe as many as 22 guns are

25

paraded in here, its possible that jurors may not be

26

able to look beyond that.

27

All that Im doing is allowing the State to


And an

I don't disagree with you at

So there will be testimony, but certainly that

117
1

testimony is not going to have the inflammatory

impact that a hours-long procession of look at

States Exhibit 1, whats this; look at States

Exhibit 2, whats this and then a description.

They'll be some expert testimony allowed just on the

Krijger issue of whether the defendant had the

wherewithal to carry out his threat.

describing all the guns, I know that one of the

points that youve made is the .308 or whatever is

But as far as

10

referred to in the search warrant, is not a

11

particular gun that was found.

12

bring that up that he didnt have a .308, if Im

13

remembering the caliber right.

14

in a position perhaps to say these guns are similar

15

to .308s or have similar firing capacities.

16

think Im going to allow in whatever that was about

17

feathering triggers or whatever the words were,

18

probably not, because I dont think thats relevant.

19

I think the jury will know that the defendant has all

20

these guns, that makes your point.

21

to have to be decided as we go.

22

dont think I need to rule on the 9/19 warrant.

23
24
25
26
27

You can certainly

I assume the experts

Do I

But thats going

So thats why I

So, what else did I leave out?

And I hope your

answer is nothing.
ATTY. BAIRD:

With regard to that ruling

nothing.
THE COURT:

All right.

Attorney Hans, anything

118
1

else that you heard argued along the way by way of

suppression that I didn't cover?

ATTY. HANS:

Just for clarity purposes, so

youre hamstringing the State on even describing the

guns when the email says a .308, were not allowed to

say the type of guns or I just want clarity on the

ruling.

8
9

THE COURT:

You can -- well, youre asking me,

can you describe the guns?

10

ATTY. HANS:

Did you say I could not refer to

11

the number of guns, like I cant say that there were

12

15 guns and these are --

13

THE COURT:

Well, whats the relevance?

What is

14

the relevance in your view as to 15 and does that

15

suggest greater relevance than 14?

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

18

The problem Your Honor, is -Im just asking that, is there some

relevance to the number of 15 guns?

19

ATTY. HANS:

Its relevant to say that he was

20

fully loaded and armed and prepared to effectuate the

21

threat.

22

with one gun.

23
24

And youre right; he could have done it only

THE COURT:

of those guns handguns?

25

ATTY. HANS:

26

THE COURT:

27

One of those guns was -- arent some

shot?

Yes, sir.
Were they capable of firing the

119
1

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

Not the 245 yards in the e-mail.


Okay.

So then we should at least

reduce the number of -- if its being introduced to

show wherewithal, then guns that dont have the

wherewithal then shouldnt be mentioned.

ATTY. HANS:

Okay.

This is the problem that the

State has.

warrant and a search of the defendants home and

seizure of firearms as well as ammunition and the

10

jury doesn't know exactly the number or type its

11

going to look like Im not doing job because those

12

are basic questions.

13

Ill have to ask for a special jury instruction to

14

say that I was barred from --

15

If were eliciting testimony about a risk

THE COURT:

So Im going to -- Ill guess

You can ask.

You know what, youre

16

going to ask for whatever you want to ask and Im

17

going to rule as whatever I think the law requires.

18

If I decide that the only testimony that will be

19

allowed is general testimony that a number of

20

firearms were seized, then I may instruct the jury

21

that I determined that you shouldnt concern yourself

22

with how many.

23

my order, so dont hold it against either side.

24

The fact is a number of guns, this is

Now, I will say this, I will allow you to bring

25

in an expert to explain that some, or I dont know

26

how many there are, one or some of those guns that

27

were seized did have the capacity to fire the type of

120
1

shot described in the warrant.

hamstringing you, but I think Im just allowing you

to introduce what's relevant and keeping out what

isnt.

another persons application of legal principles.

So what one persons hamstringing is, is

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

So you may say Im

Thank you, Your Honor.


Thank you.
The only other issue I have is I

dont have a defense witness list, and Im not in the

10

position to defend and properly represent the People

11

of the State of Connecticut without knowing whos

12

going to be called.

13

THE COURT:

14

list together or not?

15

Were you able to put a preliminary

ATTY. BAIRD:

We were putting one together

16

during lunch and Ill have one by the end of the day,

17

Your Honor.

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20
21

Okay.
What time is it?

Yeah, I should

have one.
THE COURT:

So well, I mean, heres the point

22

were actually at now anyway, so other than getting

23

clarifications on whats in and whats out, which we

24

will certainly do before the witnesses testify in

25

front of the jury, that completes the motion to

26

suppress.

27

Attorney Baird, you and your client now have the

121
1

benefit of my rulings on the motion in limine on the

two areas that you wanted to have some decision on.

Ill still -- were still going to go ahead with jury

selection and you can see how it goes, if that --

now, Im not inviting you to do that.

has already been made and youre confident that

youre making it then, I mean, I dont want to waste

anybodys time if youve already decided that this is

going to be a court trial regardless of how the jury

If a decision

10

selection proceeds then Im not precluding the

11

defendant from making that decision.

12

can decide now.

13

that were just picking jurors for the sport of it, I

14

dont think thats necessary.

15

not yet prepared to waive his right to a jury trial

16

then were now going to start the jury selection.

17

thats something you can discuss with Mr. Taupier.

18

Yes?

19

ATTY. HANS:

Obviously, he

If its entirely futile exercise

But if your client is

Your Honor, on the motion in limine

20

regarding the screen shot of the e-mail that Judge

21

Bozzuto saw, this will affect the States

22

presentation of evidence.

23

Judge Bozzuto as the first witness in their case.

24

THE COURT:

25

ATTY. HANS:

So

The State intends to call

Okay.
And the only -- the thing that she

26

got was the screen shot, and I did a motion in limine

27

to indicate that I think it is relevant to show --

122
1

its not offered for its truth, its a non-hearsay

purpose, to show --

3
4
5

THE COURT:

Whats a screen -- what do you mean

a screen shot?
ATTY. HANS:

It would be, I believe, she took a

picture either on her camera phone, you know, on her

phone and so she took a picture of the e-mail, it

doesnt have the to, from and subject line, it just

has the basic content of the e-mail, and that is what

10
11
12

Judge Bozzuto has indicated to me that she saw.


THE COURT:

Okay.

So this was something that

was sent to her --

13

ATTY. HANS:

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. HANS:

16

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.


-- in an e-mail?
Yes.
Im guess, although I dont know

17

this, from the police or some law enforcement

18

official?

19

ATTY. HANS:

20

THE COURT:

21

I believe it was a marshal.


Okay.

be the objection to that?

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

suppose there may be --

24

THE COURT:

If a proper foundation is laid I

Well, its going to be a proper

25

foundation as to what?

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

And she -- I mean, what would

Unfortunately, Your Honor, there

are no police reports regarding any conversation with

123
1

Judge Bozzuto, any interaction with Judge Bozzuto,

what Judge Bozzuto saw, didnt see, so I really have

no idea what her testimonys going to be.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, I understand --

so I have no idea.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

9
10
11

No statement was taken from her,

A statement was or was not?


Was not, so I have no indication

what Judge Bozzuto saw, when she saw it, who showed
it to her.
THE COURT:

All right.

Well, you know, I guess

12

I have to hear -- I can't rule on everything in

13

limine.

14

Bozzuto as your first witness.

15

depends on whether this is a court trial or a jury

16

trial because there can be some greater flexibility

17

in a court trial, but if its a jury trial youre

18

going to have to be able to tie that to the

19

defendant.

20

that at this point theres no evidence.

21

is insufficient evidence presented that the defendant

22

sent that e-mail that she saw on the screen shot

23

then, I mean, if theres insufficient evidence as a

24

matter of law then the case isnt even going to go to

25

the jury.

26
27

I understand that you want to call Judge


Maybe some of this

Possibly, the jury will be instructed


And if there

But I would certainly instruct the jury that, to


the extent that I would allow it, that this is what

124
1

was received, but theres no evidence who sent this

e-mail, its just that -- well, how it came to the

attention of law enforcement.

can say is that I received this e-mail from law

enforcement and this is how I felt, this is how I

knew -- this is why I knew what it referred to.

I suppose she'd be able to indicate certain

statements as long as there was a very clearly-worded

instruction, but I have to hear it as we go along.

10
11

Okay.

All that Judge Bozzuto

Its been a long day.

And

Anything else I

have to take up today form the State, nothing?

12

ATTY. HANS:

Nothing, Your Honor.

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

15

THE COURT:

Defense?

Nothing?

No, Your Honor.


Okay.

Thank you.

So tomorrow we

16

wont be in session and you can attend to your

17

business tomorrow.

18

available Thursday afternoon?

Thursday -- would you be

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

21

I think -- youll be back, well get a better

22
23
24

Yes.

I appreciate your availably.

idea of what your medical situation is.


Mr. Taupier, please be here Thursday, but not
till two.

25

THE DEFENDANT:

26

THE COURT:

27

Two.

Two oclock.

That way I can do my

other business and just so you know, were not -- all

125
1

that were going to probably decide on Tuesday [sic]

is whether or not theres going to be a delay in the

trial.

her medical situation.

Baird, as to your view on where proceed from there.

I guess well have to see so.

So the only -- well hear from Ms. Hans on

Okay.

And I may inquire, Attorney

So Ill see.

Thank you for your -- to

both sides really, these are some significant legal

issues that have been presented and what I've tried

10

here is balance a number of competing interests and I

11

believe that the rulings Ive made here achieved that

12

balance.

13

disappointed in my ruling then maybe its right.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

And as they say, if both sides are equally

So well see everybody Thursday at 2:00.


pleasant evening and a nice tomorrow.
(Proceedings end at 4:02 p.m.)

Have a

Thank you.

MMX-CR14-0675616T

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLESEX

V.

AT MIDDLETOWN,
CONNECTICUT

EDWARD F. TAUPIER

MARCH 10, 2015

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and


correct transcription of the audio recording of the abovereferenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of
Middlesex, Middletown, Connecticut, before the Honorable David P.
Gold, Judge, on the 10th day of March 2015.
Dated this 27th day of March 2015 in Middletown,
Connecticut.

_____________________________
Dana Wilson
Court Recording Monitor

EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C

Rachel M. Baird & Associate


Old Post Office Square
8 Church St Ste 3B
Torrington CT 06790-5247
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Mitchell Lake, Associate Attorney
Patricia A. Tartaglino, Office Manager
Edward A. Peruta, Legal Investigator

Tel: 860.626.9991
Fax: 860.626.9992
Site: www.rachelbairdlaw.com
Email: info@rachelbairdlaw.com

March 4, 2015
Colonel Brian F. Meraviglia
Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut State Police
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection
1111 Country Club Rd
Middletown, CT 06057
Email: brian.meraviglia@ct.gov
Re:

Request for Criminal Investigation of Connecticut State Police Officers


CSP Case No. 14-00537444

Dear Colonel Meraviglia:


This is a request for a criminal investigation upon allegations that a warrant, issued pursuant to
General Statutes 29-38c, was redacted and altered without affirmation or oath subsequent to its issuance
and execution and prior to its return to the court.
Specifically, Connecticut State Police (CSP) Sergeant Medina tampered with a warrant after it
was signed by a judge and executed by the CSP when he altered the warrant by redaction and the addition
of language.1 Sergeant Medina then deliberately omitted the date of his redactions and alterations to
conceal that a warrant issued by a judge upon oath and affirmation by Trooper Katrenya and Trooper
DeJesus was redacted and altered after it was executed and prior to its return to the court. Sergeant
Medina acted in concert at and subsequent to the tampering to further the scheme with the following
individuals, so far known to the undersigned:
Trooper DeJesus
Trooper Katrenya
Assistant States Attorney Vicki Melchiorre
Assistant States Attorney Brenda Hans
The Honorable Edward J. Mullarkey
Sincerely,

Rachel M. Baird, Attorney


1

See for example, General Statutes 53a-155, Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence: (a) A person is
guilty of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding is pending, or
about to be instituted, he: (1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with purpose to
impair its verity or availability in such proceeding; or (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing
knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in such official
proceeding. (b) Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a class D felony.

EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Miele, Mark <Mark.Miele@ct.gov>


Date: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM
Subject: Interview
To: "3golli3@gmail.com" <3golli3@gmail.com>
Marina,
Can you call me office ASAP. The CT State Police would like to speak with you. 860343-6432

Mark Miele
Inspector
Judicial District of Middlesex
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457
860-343-6425-work
860-343-6427-fax
mark.miele@ct.gov

EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E

1/18/2016

SDSDDistrictVersion1.3

CLOSED,EFILE

U.S.DistrictCourt
UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofConnecticut(NewHaven)
CIVILDOCKETFORCASE#:3:15cv00319AWT
Taupierv.Katrenyaetal
Assignedto:JudgeAlvinW.Thompson
Cause:42:1983CivilRightsAct

DateFiled:03/04/2015
DateTerminated:07/08/2015
JuryDemand:Plaintiff
NatureofSuit:440CivilRights:Other
Jurisdiction:FederalQuestion

Plaintiff
EdwardTaupier

representedby JohnJ.Radshaw,III
900ChapelStreet
Suite620
NewHaven,CT06510
203.654.9695
Fax:203.721.6182
Email:jjr@jjresq.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED

V.
Defendant
AndrewKatrenya

representedby StephenRichardSarnoski
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
PublicSafety&SpecialRevenue
MacKenzieHall,110ShermanStreet
Hartford,CT06105
8608085450
Fax:8608085591
Email:stephen.sarnoski@ct.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED

Defendant
DanielDeJesus

representedby StephenRichardSarnoski
(Seeaboveforaddress)
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED

Defendant
VictoriaMelchiorre

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgibin/DktRpt.pl?864438484006462L_1_01

representedby StephenRichardSarnoski
(Seeaboveforaddress)
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
1/4

1/18/2016

SDSDDistrictVersion1.3

DateFiled

DocketText

03/04/2015

1 COMPLAINTagainstAllDefendants(Filingfee$400receiptnumber0205
3528046.),filedbyEdwardTaupier.(Radshaw,John)(Entered:03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

RequestforClerktoissuesummonsastoAllDefendants.(Radshaw,John)
(Entered:03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

JudgeAlvinW.Thompsonadded.(Oliver,T.)(Entered:03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

2 OrderonPretrialDeadlines:MotionstoDismissdueon6/4/15.Amended
Pleadingsdueby5/3/2015.Discoverydueby9/3/2015.DispositiveMotionsdueby
10/3/2015.
SignedbyClerkon3/4/15.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:03/05/2015)

03/04/2015

3 ELECTRONICFILINGORDERPLEASEENSURECOMPLIANCEWITH
COURTESYCOPYREQUIREMENTSINTHISORDER.
SignedbyJudgeAlvinW.Thompsonon3/4/15.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:
03/05/2015)

03/04/2015

4 STANDINGPROTECTIVEORDER.
SignedbyJudgeAlvinW.Thompsonon3/4/15.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:
03/05/2015)

03/05/2015

5 NOTICETOCOUNSEL:Counselinitiatingorremovingthisactionisresponsible
forservingallpartieswithattacheddocumentsandcopiesof2OrderonPretrial
Deadlines,4StandingProtectiveOrder,1ComplaintfiledbyEdwardTaupier,3
ElectronicFilingOrder
SignedbyClerkon3/5/15.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:03/05/2015)

03/05/2015

6 ELECTRONICSUMMONSISSUEDinaccordancewithFed.R.Civ.P.4andLR
4asto*DanielDeJesus,AndrewKatrenya,VictoriaMelchiorre*withanswerto
complaintduewithin*21*days.Attorney*JohnJ.Radshaw,III**900Chapel
Street**Suite620**NewHaven,CT06510*.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:
03/05/2015)

03/24/2015

7 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyEdwardTaupier.VictoriaMelchiorreservedon
3/13/2015,answerdue4/3/2015.(Radshaw,John)(Entered:03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

8 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyEdwardTaupier.AndrewKatrenyaservedon
3/6/2015,answerdue3/27/2015.(Radshaw,John)(Entered:03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

9 SUMMONSReturnedExecutedbyEdwardTaupier.DanielDeJesusservedon
3/6/2015,answerdue3/27/2015.(Radshaw,John)(Entered:03/24/2015)

03/31/2015

10 NOTICEofAppearancebyStephenRichardSarnoskionbehalfofDanielDeJesus,
AndrewKatrenya,VictoriaMelchiorre(Sarnoski,Stephen)(Entered:03/31/2015)

04/17/2015

11 MOTIONforSecurityforCostsbyDanielDeJesus,AndrewKatrenya,Victoria
Melchiorre.(Sarnoski,Stephen)(Entered:04/17/2015)

04/24/2015

12 MOTIONtoDismissbyDanielDeJesus,AndrewKatrenya,Victoria
Melchiorre.Responsesdueby5/15/2015(Sarnoski,Stephen)(Entered:04/24/2015)

04/24/2015

13 MemoranduminSupportre12MOTIONtoDismissfiledbyDanielDeJesus,

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgibin/DktRpt.pl?864438484006462L_1_01

2/4

1/18/2016

SDSDDistrictVersion1.3

AndrewKatrenya,VictoriaMelchiorre.(Attachments:#1ExhibitExhibitAState
CourtCaseDetail,#2ExhibitExhibitBPart2Transcriptof03092014,#3
ExhibitExhibitBPart2Transcriptof03092014,#4ExhibitExhibitBPart3
Transcriptof03092014,#5ExhibitExhibitB1SE1RiskWarrant,#6
ExhibitExhibitB2SE2SearchWarrant,#7ExhibitExhibitB3SE3Police
Report,#8ExhibitExhibitCPart1Transcriptof03102014,#9Exhibit
ExhibitCPart2Transcriptof03102014,#10ExhibitExhibitCPart3
Transcriptof03102014)(Sarnoski,Stephen)(Entered:04/24/2015)
04/29/2015

14 MOTIONtoTakeDepositionfromEdwardTaupierbyDanielDeJesus,Andrew
Katrenya,VictoriaMelchiorre.(Sarnoski,Stephen)(Entered:04/29/2015)

05/01/2015

15 ORDER:MotionforPermissiontoDeposePrisoner(Doc.No.14)ishereby
GRANTED.Itissoordered.SignedbyJudgeAlvinW.Thompsonon5/1/2015.
(Wang,M.)(Entered:05/01/2015)

05/19/2015

16 ORDERgranting11MotionforSecurityforCosts.Thedefendant(s)havingmade
applicationtotheClerkofCourtforanorderrequiringtheplaintiff(s)todepositor
fileabondwithsufficientsuretyinthesumof$500.00pursuanttoLocalRule
83.3(a)oftheRulesofCivilProcedurefortheUnitedStatesDistrictof
Connecticut,itisORDEREDthattheplaintiff(s)hereinfileabondassecurityfor
costsinthisactionwithinthirty(30)daysfromthisdate.SignedbyClerkon
5/19/15.(Ferguson,L.)(Entered:05/19/2015)

06/17/2015

17 JointREPORTofRule26(f)PlanningMeeting.(Radshaw,John)(Entered:
06/17/2015)

06/29/2015

18 ORDER:MotiontoDismiss(Doc.No.12)isherebyGRANTED.TheClerkshall
closethiscase.Itissoordered.SignedbyJudgeAlvinW.Thompsonon6/29/2015.
(Wang,M.)(Entered:06/29/2015)

07/08/2015

19 JUDGMENTenteredinfavorofAndrewKatrenya,DanielDeJesus,Victoria
MelchiorreagainstEdwardTaupier,andthecourtdeclinedtoexercise
supplementaljurisdictionovertheremainingstatelawclaims.
ForAppealFormspleasegotothefollowingwebsite:
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/allforms/appeals_forms
SignedbyClerkon7/8/2015.(Smith,S.)(Entered:07/08/2015)

07/08/2015

JUDICIALPROCEEDINGSSURVEY:Thefollowinglinktotheconfidential
surveyrequiresyoutologintoCM/ECFforSECURITYpurposes.Oncein
CM/ECFyouwillbepromptedforthecasenumber.Althoughyouarereceiving
thissurveythroughCM/ECF,itishostedonanindependentwebsitecalled
SurveyMonkey.OnceinSurveyMonkey,thesurveyislocatedinasecureaccount.
Thesurveyisnotdocketedanditisnotsentdirectlytothejudge.Toensure
anonymity,completedsurveysareheldupto90daysbeforetheyaresenttothe
judgeforreview.Wehopeyouwilltakethisopportunitytoparticipate,pleaseclick
onthislink:
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgibin/Dispatch.pl?survey
(Smith,S.)(Entered:07/08/2015)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgibin/DktRpt.pl?864438484006462L_1_01

3/4

1/18/2016

SDSDDistrictVersion1.3

PACERServiceCenter
TransactionReceipt
01/18/201606:11:41
PACER
Login:

bairdlawoffice:2710726:0 ClientCode:

Description: DocketReport

Search
Criteria:

3:15cv00319
AWT

Billable
Pages:

Cost:

0.30

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgibin/DktRpt.pl?864438484006462L_1_01

4/4

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------x
:
EDWARD TAUPIER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
ANDREW KATRENYA, DANIEL
:
DEJESUS, and VICTORIA
:
MELCHIORRE,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:15CV319(AWT)

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS


For the reasons set forth below, the defendants Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is hereby GRANTED.
Legal Standard
When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must accept as true all factual allegations in the
complaint and must draw inferences in a light most favorable to
the plaintiff.
(1974).

See

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

Although a complaint does not need detailed factual

allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds


of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 6

265, 286 (1986)(on a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound to


accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation).

Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders

naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.


Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 557).

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a

right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption


that all allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful
in fact).

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

However, the plaintiff must plead only enough facts to state a


claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Id. at 570.

The function of a motion to dismiss is merely to assess the


legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of
the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.
Mytych v. May Dept. Store Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130, 131 (D. Conn.
1999), quoting Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch
Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984).

The issue

on a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will


prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence
to support his claims.

United States v. Yale New Haven Hosp.,

727 F. Supp. 784, 786 (D. Conn. 1990) (citing Scheuer, 416 U.S.
at 232).
In its review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, the court may consider only the facts alleged in the
2

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 6

pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by


reference in the pleadings and matters of which judicial notice
may be taken.

Samuels v. Air Transport Local 504, 992 F.2d 12,

15 (2d Cir. 1993).


Discussion
This case arose out of the plaintiffs arrest on August 29,
2014.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants Andrew Katrenya and

Daniel DeJesus signed an arrest warrant and a risk warrant


under oath swearing that probable cause existed even though
neither warrant was supported by probable cause.

The plaintiff

alleges that defendant Victoria Melchiorre coordinated the


presentation of the arrest warrant and the risk warrant to a
judge of the Connecticut Superior Court, whom they knew was not
a neutral magistrate.

The plaintiff alleges that this judges

open, actual and public hostility to and bias against the


individual right of firearms ownership had been widely reported
by the news media.

(Compl., Doc. No. 1, 21.)

The plaintiff

alleges the search and seizure of his home and his firearms was
unlawful.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated

his rights under the Fourth Amendment and his rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that

the defendants committed state law torts of malicious


prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 6

emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional


distress.
The defendants contend that the court should abstain from
adjudicating the plaintiffs constitutional claims because it
would interfere with the plaintiffs ongoing state court
criminal prosecution.

The court agrees.

Interests of federalism and comity stand behind the


fundamental policy against federal interference with state
criminal prosecutions.

Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 76 (2d

Cir. 1988)(quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971)).


The Second Circuit looks at three factors to determine whether
abstention is proper: (1) whether there is an ongoing state
proceeding; (2) whether an important state interest is involved;
and (3) whether the federal plaintiff has an adequate
opportunity for judicial review of his constitutional claims
during or after the proceeding.

Christ the King Regional High

School v. Culvert, 815 F.2d 219, 224 (2d Cir. 1987).


In this case, these factors support abstention.

First, the

court takes judicial notice of entries on the docket sheet,


submitted by the defendants, for the plaintiffs state criminal
case, which reflect that there is an ongoing criminal case.

See

Global Network Commcns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150,
157 (2d Cir. 2006) (A court may take judicial notice of a
document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters
4

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 6

asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the


fact of such litigation and related filings.).

Second, it is

axiomatic that a states interest in the administration of


criminal justice within its borders is an important one.

Hanel

v. Town Court for Town of Springfield, 56 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.
1995).

Third, the plaintiff has not claimed that he is barred

on procedural or technical grounds from raising his


constitutional claims in his state court proceeding.

See id. at

394 (So long as a plaintiff is not barred on procedural or


technical grounds from raising alleged constitutional
infirmities, it cannot be said that state court review of
constitutional claims is inadequate for Younger purposes.).
Moreover, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that a
suppression hearing concerning the evidence that was collected
using the risk warrant was held in the plaintiffs criminal
case addressing some of the same constitutional infirmities that
have been alleged here.

Consequently, this case falls squarely

within the requirements for Younger abstention.

Therefore, all

federal claims against the defendants are being dismissed.


The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over any state law claims.

See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

383 U.S. 715, 715-26 (1966) (holding that where all federal
claims have been dismissed before trial, pendent state claims

Case 3:15-cv-00319-AWT Document 18 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 6

should be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution by


the state courts).
The Clerk shall close this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 29th day of June 2015, at Hartford, Connecticut.

__________/s/ __________
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

You might also like