Washington and Colorado Voters Legalize Marijuana

President Obama was not the only big winner after November’s election—marijuana took center stage following its legalization in two states.  Voters in Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for general use, becoming the first states in the U.S. to do so. These measures are in direct conflict with federal law, which continues to outlaw marijuana as a dangerous drug under the Controlled Substances Act.  The Obama administration has signaled that federal law enforcement officials will continue to pursue trafficking and other offenses throughout the U.S.

The Colorado measure, which passed with 55% of the vote, will let residents 21 years and older grow and possess up to one ounce of marijuana.  The state will also allow marijuana sales at special stores starting in 2014.  Washington's marijuana law calls for legislators to design from scratch a homegrown industry for cultivation, processing and retailing sales of marijuana within state boundaries to people 21 or older.  The state liquor-control board will oversee licensing and inspection.

 

Connecticut, by comparison, recently became the 17^th state to legalize marijuana for medical or “palliative” use by patients with debilitating medical conditions.  The bulk of the law went into effect on October 1, 2012.  The Department of Consumer Protection will regulate the state-licensed distribution of marijuana, which includes; licensing of producers and dispensaries, registration of patients, and determination of qualifying medical conditions.  Marijuana is also “decriminalized” in Connecticut, meaning that if caught with a half-ounce or less of marijuana, you will receive a ticket, and your marijuana will be confiscated.  The first offense is a ticket for $150, with the amount of the fine increasing for each subsequent offense.

UConn Law Library Can Sue Contractors after Statute of Limitations Expired

In an interesting case that reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the Court reversed a lower court ruling which had prohibited the state from seeking damages from contractors that the state claimed were responsible for extensive construction and design problems with the building of University of Connecticut School of Law Library.  The state is now able to seek recovery from contractors and architects for over $15 million. The state had initially sued the builders and designers of the library in 2008.  However, the defendants believed the lawsuit should be thrown out because the state had waited 12 years before suing.  The state successfully argued that it did not have to adhere to the normal six-year statute of limitations, basing its argument on an old English legal doctrine.  The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the state.  It remains to be seen whether future cases will be affected by the Court's ruling which essentially allowed the state to be immune from the statute of limitations normally applied to construction contracts.

A link to the Courant article on the current can be found here: http://articles.courant.com/2012-11-02/news/hc-uconn-library-legal-battle-1103-20121102_1_time-limit-nullum-tempus-liability

Begging your Pardon? Witchcraft in Colonial Connecticut.

 

For a person who has been convicted of a crime in the state of Connecticut to have their record cleared, they must make an application for a pardon to the Board of Pardons and Parole, which is a subdivision of the state Department of Corrections.   Whether a pardon will be granted depends heavily on the seriousness of the criminal offense and the circumstances surrounding and following the conviction.  But what happens when the conviction was hundreds of years ago?  Connecticut was the first colony to execute an individual convicted of witchcraft in the 17^th century.  Goodwife Bessett confessed to witchcraft (undoubtedly under conditions which would constitute duress today) and hanged in Stratford, Connecticut in 1651 (more than forty years before the infamous Salem Witch Trials which occurred in present day Danvers, Massachusetts.) 

However, some Connecticut residents are searching for redemption for some of those wrongly accused and executed so long ago.  A retired police Sergeant from New Haven, Mr. Tony Grieco, is seeking community support for the issuance of pardons on behalf of 11 named individuals who were executed as witches in Connecticut.  As quoted by WTNH.com, “Grieco says many of the so-called witches were tried, convicted, and executed at the old State House in Hartford. The first one was hung from a tree and buried in a hole back in 1647.”  Mr. Grieco takes issue with the fact that "[m]ost of the people who were accused had no defense attorneys [and] their trails were based on accusation from neighbors."

Unfortunately for Mr. Grieco and the tarnished reputations of the Connecticut witches, Governor Dan Malloy lacks the power to grant such a pardon request, and representatives of the Queen of England (as England ruled colonial Connecticut in the 17^th century) simply do not have enough information to act on Mr. Grieco’s request.  It seems for the foreseeable future, the witches will remain on the books. 

Happy Halloween!

John Maxwell Weighs in on Juvenile Detention

Attorney John Maxwell, a seasoned criminal attorney at Brown, Paindiris & Scott weighed in on the frequency of juvenile detention in Connecticut this week. He was quoted in an article appearing in the Hartford Courant on September 26, 2012. Read the full article here.

A District Without Judges

Our system of formal dispute resolution and criminal justice essentially relies on all the actors being in place.  When you go to court, you need your lawyer.  Your opponent needs his.  The court reporter keeps a record of what goes on.  The bailiff ensures public safety and enforces decorum.  The judge presides.  The judge can be the arbiter of the dispute, or the referee of procedure.  The judge can make an enforceable ruling, or refrain from acting.  The judge is an indispensable component of our system.

How does the judge get to the bench?  Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed with advice and consent of the Senate.  Thus, like any initiative that passes through Congress, the appointment of judges can be bogged down by the democratic process and party politicking.  This partisanship can be intense in judicial appointments, as those appointments are often more enduring then legislative positions since a federal judge keeps his or her seat for life (i.e. “during good behavior”).  

The judicial appointment process becomes increasingly politicized in the midst of a highly contested election season.   Presently, 17 appointments are being held up in the Senate due to partisan blocking, including that of Attorney Michael Shea for the District of Connecticut.   The delay of judicial appointments, such as that of Mr. Shea, are sorely felt in the District of Connecticut, where district court judge Peter C. Dorsey passed away earlier this year, another judge is ill and judge Christopher Droney was raised up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The result:  A backlog of civil cases without a judge to preside over them.  The further result: the importation of judges from other districts to preside in Connecticut.  Chief U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson has asked judges from other districts around the country to come to Connecticut in order to relieve a backlog of civil cases.  So far, judges from district courts in New York, Ohio, Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota are en route or have arrived in Connecticut to attempt to help the District of Connecticut judges out of this litigation backlog. 

Facebook “Like” not Constitutionally Protected Speech

In a recent Virginia District Court decision, the court held that “merely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.” Bland v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57530 (E.D. Va. 2012).  The case in question came before the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia after B.J. Roberts of the Hampton, Virginia Sheriff's Department fired five employees following his successful reelection in 2009.  The fired employees filed an action alleging that they were fired in retaliation for their exercise of freedom of speech because before the election, they each "Liked" the Facebook campaign page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams.

Although holding a Facebook “Like” was unprotected speech, the court recognized cases in which Facebook posts were afforded constitutional protection.  In those cases, there were actual posts, either on a wall or in a comment, containing actual statements and therefore sufficient speech to be protected by the First Amendment.  The court, holding a “Like” as unprotected speech, determined that a “Like” is “not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The Court [would] not attempt to infer the actual content of [Plaintiffs’] posts from one click of a button on [a] Facebook page.” Bland v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57530 (E.D. Va. 2012).

 

Attorney David Rintoul to present at ERISA Claim Litigation Seminar

Attorney David Rintoul will be presenting at the ERISA Claim Litigation 101 Seminar sponsored by the Connecticut Bar Association on September 19, 2012.  He will be addressing the law, regulations and practice of administrative appeals of disability benefit and health insurance benefit claims.    

 

The process of appealing benefit denials with the plan is crucial to a successful suit for benefits under the plan, since claimants generally can only present evidence and argument in court that they have raised during the appeal process.  Patrick Begos and Alexander Schwartz will also be presenting on other issues involving ERISA litigation.