Page 28 - CLT112320

28 ¦ NOVEMBER 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT er in order to discredit Weaver. Pladsen called
Weaver, again offering to provide informa-
tion. In particular, he offered to show Weaver
a note that Ashby had written, describing the
CRIMINAL LAW • CONSTITUTIONAL LAW plan. The state gave notice that it intended to

Using Jailhouse Informant to Elicit call Pladsen as a witness. Ashby moved to sup-
press. At a hearing, Pladsen described his con-
Incriminating Statements Violated versations with Ashby and events leading to
Defendant’s Right to Counsel creation of the note. He testified that he had
acted on his own and that Weaver had made
him no promises. The trial court denied the
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Ashby suppression motion, finding that Pladsen had
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 18190 not been acting as an agent of the prosecu-
COURT OPINION BY: Robinson tion. Pladsen had initiated the first contact,
DATE: August 06, 2020 • PAGES: 36 the court noted, and there was no evidence
The court reversed a judgment, holding that that the prosecution had devised a plan to en-
the state’s use of a jailhouse informant to elic- list Pladsen’s help in obtaining incriminating
it incriminating statements from a defendant evidence from Ashby. There was no evidence
violated his Sixth Amendment right to coun- that Pladsen had deliberately been housed
sel, where the evidence demonstrated an agen- near Ashby. And there was no evidence that
cy relationship between the informant and Weaver had ever made any promises or of-
the prosecutor. Defendant Lazale Ashby was fers to Pladsen. The Supreme Court reversed,
charged with murder, after the police found holding that Pladsen was acting as an agent of
DNA evidence linking him to a woman who the state when he elicited incriminating state-
had been strangled in her apartment. Ashby ments from Ashby. It is established law that
was incarcerated prior to and during trial. prosecutors and police have an affirmative
Kenneth Pladsen, another inmate in the jail, obligation not to act in a manner that circum-
communicated with Andrew Weaver, the po- vents, and thereby dilutes, the protection af-
lice detective in Ashby’s case, offering to pro- forded by the right to counsel. In this case, the
vide him “useful” information about the case. initial meeting between Pladsen and Weaver
Weaver arranged a meeting with Pladsen but placed emphasis on what useful information
then later advised Pladsen that the Office of Pladsen might provide in the future. The writ-
the State’s Attorney was not interested. Plad- ten note that Pladsen produced mirrored the
sen told Ashby about the meeting. According requirements for evidence that Weaver said
to Pladsen, Ashby devised a plan for Pladsen he was interested in. And finally, Weaver was
to feed information to Weaver so that Pladsen clearly seeking assurance of some future ben-
could be called to testify, falsely, about Weav- efit in exchange for his cooperation.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune