In today’s Courant, Mark Pazniokas examines Dick Blumenthal and Jodi Rell’s attempt to keep serial rapist David Pollit in jail beyond his sentence. It’s a lengthy article, but well worth the read.
Two especially interesting passages:
Overlooked in that frenzied day of press conferences and hasty legal research was that Kane, a career prosecutor, had quietly refused Blumenthal’s invitation to join him in trying to delay Pollitt’s release.
Kane saw no legal basis for Blumenthal’s motion to confine Pollitt to a mental-health facility or halfway house – the same conclusion that Judge Susan B. Handy would reach publicly hours later in Superior Court in New London.
He also questioned why a judge was being made to seemingly take responsibility for an act ordained by law and the passage of time: After 24 years and seven months in prison, Pollitt was due to be released and begin five years of probation.
“The court had no authority to grant any relief under the circumstances, where the defendant had completed the incarceration portion of the sentence,” said Kane, a prosecutor since 1972. Choosing his words carefully, Kane said, “Asking a court to do something a court cannot do puts the court in a very unfair situation.”
And…
A freedom of information request by The Courant for any documents or e-mails Rell received about the Pollitt case yielded no research from her legal counsel or information from any government agency about Pollitt’s crimes, his prison record or prospects after release.
Rell said she acted on the concerns of Southbury residents.
“I was watching the news accounts,” Rell said. “I can’t remember which person it was. It was sort of like this pleading, if you will. `We need someone who hears us, someone who hears what we’re saying.’”
Rell heard them. In three years as governor, she has repeatedly demonstrated a good ear for public opinion and a nimbleness in getting in front of controversial issues.
I’d hate to think that the Attorney General and Governor of Connecticut actually thought they had a chance of keeping Pollitt behind bars. But even worse is if Rell and Blumenthal knew that there was nothing they could do, but still put on a show to score political points.
Thoughts?
4 responses so far ↓
Rell & Blumie meddling like that was just shocking. But since harrassing people who have paid their debt to society (and publicizing their every move) is common now, I doubt there will be any lasting effect.
Once again, fear trumps liberty. It’s all a matter of whose fear & whose liberty is in question.
The real problem is with the parameters of Blumie’s office: There are none. Every once in awhile, he’ll run up against a judge who just says “No!” That’s it. Otherwise, he’s a consumer protection agency with subpoena powers.
I’m a big Blumer fan. I generally like the fights he picks. I was disappointed by his actions on this. I understand many of his actions are political in nature, even when he picks the good fights, but this one…well was pretty damn transparent.
Maybe I’ve misread this matter, but the article doesn’t mention that Judge Handy had already set Pollitt’s probation conditions in a September hearing, after any original probation conditions from the deceased sentencing Judge were not found.
Handy noted that the lack of facilities for sex offenders in explaining the lenghty conditions she imposed, after consulting the State’s Attorney and Adult Probation officials in refusing Blumenthal’s motion to represent the Child Advocate in those conditions the day before Pollitt’s October release.
If Rell was truly concerned about public safety here, Blumenthal should have represented her before Judge Handy and not the Child Advocate, but then Rell would have to explain herself before a Judge.
You must log in to post a comment.