Page 49 - CLT032320

CLOSING ARGUMENT MARCH 23, 2020 ¦ 49

EDITORIAL BOARD

timony relative to the circumstances and the so as not to chill judges from articulating their
defendant’s life is permissible. reasons, nor to prevent correction when the
The trial court’s discretion is not, however, sentencing judge relied on information that was
completely unfettered. As a matter of due process, truly unreliable, inaccurate or patently wrong.
information may be considered so long as if it has We repeat-low bar.
some minimal indicium of reliability. As defined, In 1986, the Connecticut Supreme Court in
reliability means that the judge has a reasonable, State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121 (1986), articulat-
persuasive basis for relying on the information. ed all the aforementioned principles of law. The
There is, however, no easy for- court has repeated these stan-
mula or threshold inquiry for
determining what information dards many times, embracing
considered by a sentencing the vagaries and even refusing
judge is sufficiently reliable to A sentencing judge has to overrule or limit Huey. Then
meet the requirements of due very broad discretion in in April 2018, the court granted
process. imposing any sentence certification in In re Angel M
on the following issue: “Should
A reviewing court looks to within the statutory the Supreme Court overrule
whether a sentencing judge has limits. In exercising that State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121,
relied on demonstrably false discretion he generally 505 A.2d 1242 (1986), because
information and whether the is permitted to consider consideration of a defendant’s
sentencing process created a matters that would not be refusal to admit guilt for any
significant possibility that misin- purpose at sentencing is a vio-
formation “infected the decision.” admissible at trial lation of the defendant’s right
An appellate court adheres to the against self-incrimination?”
principal that if the sentencing
judge had a reasonable, per- Briefs were filed between
suasive basis for relying on the November, 2018 and January,
information that he relied upon, 2019 and the case was argued
it will generally not interfere with in September, 2019. A decision
his discretion. It’s a fairly low bar: on the certified question may
only when the information was not answer all the parameters
materially false or unreliable and outlined in Huey and its prog-
the trial court substantially relied eny, but trials arising out of the
on the information in determin- #MeToo movement will contin-
ue and it would be beneficial to
ing the sentence will appellate have some of the due process concerns and con-
courts intervene.
Courts have even permissibly relied on a de- siderations revisited before too many convictions
fendant’s failure to deny the allegations as an are put in jeopardy. Whether New York will look
important indicium of reliability. When there to Connecticut’s Angel M. for guidance when
are still outstanding charges or the defendant Weinstein’s case gets appealed is anyone’s guess
expects to appeal the subject conviction, hoping depending upon its outcome, but a fresh look at
for a new trial, that reliance is suspect. Never- sentencing considerations and what due process
theless, courts have been loath to require more entails will be welcome for sure.
¦

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune