Opposition Brief — Connecticut v. Couture

j O'tice Supreme Court, U,

F ILED

DEC 24 1984

No. 84-887

4. .EXANDER L. STEVas

CLERK

IN TH®

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1984

STATE OF CONNECTICUT,

Petitioner,

DONALD COUTURF,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut

BPIEF IN OPPOSTION TO

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORAPI

JOHN R. WILLIAMS

Attornev for Respondent

Williams and “ise

ry 51 Flm Street

New Haven, Connecticut 06510

(203) 562-9931

< a =

BEST AVAILABLE COPY |

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the decision of the Connecticut .

Supreme Court in the case at bar was based

on the Connecticut State Constitution and

thus does not involve any question of

federal law?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESB mat eocssaecsosebtawesers

TABLE OF AGTOORLSE 5D oe bo 66 ee eee seeseee

STATEMENT OF THE a eee oe ee re

ARGUMENT: Reason for Denying the

pe & gat ce a

The Decision Of The Connecticut

Supreme Court That The Prosecutor's

Summation Remarks Deprived The

Respondent Of A Fair Trail Was

Based Solely On Connecticut State

Law GroundS..ccccccccccccsece eoses

CONCLUSION.......

iii

cweney

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Pade

CASES

State v. Heffner, 168 Conn, 230,

362 A.2d 925, 934, cert

denied, 423 U.S. 851 (1975).... 8

State v. Ubaldi, 190 Conn., 559,

462 A.2d 1001, 1004 (1983)..... Q

iii

No. 84-887

IN THE

SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES

October Term, 1984

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT,

Petitioner,

Vv.

DONALD COUTURE,

Respondent.

BRIEF IN OPPOSTION TO PETITION FOR

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Donald Couture was convicted of murder

following a lengthy trial in the

Connecticut Supexio’ Court for the Judicial

District of Waterbury. On appeal, he

raised a number of Federal Constitutional

claims. Without exception, the Connecticut

Supreme Court rejected each and every one

of those claims. The Supreme Court of

Connecticut did, however, reverse the

conviction because of outrageous misconduct

of the prosecutor during his summation.

The reversal was based solely and

exclusivelv upon the due process clause of

the Connecticut Constitution, Article Tf,

Section 8.

The summation delivered at the trial of

this case by Assistant State's Attorney

Walter H. Scanlon is probably the most

inflamatory and irrelevant summation ever

recorded. Mr. Couture's attorney objected

13 times during Attorney Scanlon's opening

summation to the improper arqument and or

only two occasions was his objection

sustained--when Attorney Scanlon asked the

jury to draw an unfavorable inference from

N

Couture's failure to testify (1/12/82

Tr. pp. 27-36-27-39) and one of the times

he called Mr. Couture and his co-defendant

"thieves." (Id. at p. 27-35) In addition,

immediately upon the conclusion of

Attorney Scanlon's opening summation,

Couture moved in the absence of the jurv

for, alternatively, a mistrial or to strike

the entire summation or for immediate and

strongly-worded currative instructions.

(Id. pp. 27-50-27-57) All three motions

were summarily denied. (Id. at pv. 27-57)

Attornev Scanlon's opening sentence of

his opening summation set the tone for what

would follow: "“Fdward Cody, Leslie Clark

and William West. The brutal murders of

those three men by these two cowards--that

is what this case is all about." Id. p.

27-7) The remainder of the summation,

deliverec from a prepared text, at high

volume and frequently enlivened by gestures

toward the defendants, followed the same

format. The following highlights of the

summation do not by anv means exhaust the

improprieties perpetrated bv the

prosecutor:

I implore vou not to forget for one

minute that we...have been bound to-

gether for these many weeks hecause

the lives of three good men...were

literally sacrificed to satisfy the

greed of two murderous fiends. (Id.

at p. 27-8)

We stand before you as the lawyers

for the people of this State of Con-

necticut, who have thus heen victimizee

and made less human by these horrible

murders. Now, as representatives of

all of the people, we represent every-

one in this courtro m, including each

and every one of vou, ladies and

gentlemen....(Id. at p. 27-10)

Now, it did not take vou long, did it,

ladies and gentlemen, to discover that

this was not a case about cats and

mice. No, ladies anc gentlemen. [It

was a case ahout rats. And, what else

would you call some people who would

lay in wait and shoot three men in the

back except mayvbe cowards. And, these

cowards have sat amongst you for these

manv weeks, and they sit right over

there now awaiting your judgment. (Id.

at p. 27-12)

After asking the dutiful wife a number

of questions, the officers walked

through the kitchen and entered the

bedroom and found Couture beneath the

bed garbed in only a pair of shorts,

the macho, despicable coward number

one. [Motion to strike denied!

Shortly after the discovery of this

despicable little man under his nup-

tial bed,-Lieutenant Rochicchio and

other officers in the bedroom heard

someone yell, 'We found it,' or "We

found the money." (Id. at pp. 27-24-

27-25)

[Tlheyvy are cold blooded and utterly

merciless killers that took the

lives of three good, decent and hard

working men as they performed their

worldly toils at their place of em-

plovment...What kind of person

would lav in wait and attack three

unsuspecting and almost defenseless

men and shoot them in the back? They

must be the most inhumane, unfeeling

and reprehensible creatures that God

has damned to set loose upon us. They

are undoubtedly -- fobjection over-

ruled] -- of abject cruelty, and the

cruel reminder to all of us as to just

what lengths some persons will go to

to satisfy their unchecked avarices.

These heinous and unspeakable crimes

were the product of the greed of

Lawrence Pelletier and Donald Couture.

And, their lust for money cost us, our

society, the laughter and the joy,

tears and the sorrow, the dreams

and the hopes, the work and the con-

tributions of Fdward Coady, Leslie

Clark and William West. The quint-

essence of inhumanity was reached in

this case, ladies and gentlemen, bv

two utterly reprehensible persons who

obviously felt that the lives of three

innocent men, three men they never

even knew, should be sacrificed so thev

could satisfy their insatiable greed.

(Id. at pp. 27-35 - 27-36)

Holding that “the prosecutor's prepared

remarks were deliberate, facially improper,

persistent and pronounced" the Connecticut

Supreme Court reversed the respondent's

conviction under the authority of Article

I, Section 8, of the Connecticut

Constitution. On that issue, the State of

Connecticut now petitions this Court for a

writ of certiorari.

ARGUMENT

The Decision Of The Connecticut

Supreme Court That The Prosecutor's

Summation Remarks Deprived The hKespondent

Of A Pair Trial Was Based Solely On

Connecticut State Law Grounds.

The decision of the Connecticut Supreme

Court reversing respondent's conviction did

not once even mention the United States

Constitution. The decision was expresslv

based entirely upon the due process clause

of the Connecticut Constitution. Referrina

to “our Constitution” the Court went out of

its way to verbatim the Constitutional

provision upon which it relied. The

provision is from Article I, Section 8, of

the Connecticut Constitution.

The Connecticut Supreme Court relied

almost entirely upon other Connecticut

State cases and those cases uniformly omit

any mention of the United States

Constitution or of federal law. Without

exception, the case is relied upon by the

Court in the present decision speak

entirely in terms of State law. *.g., State

vy. Haffner, 168 Conn. 230, 362 A.2d. 925,

934, cert denied, 423 U.S. 851 (1975) ("The

Fule in this State...."); State v. Whaidi,

190 Conn. 559, 462 A.2d 1001, 1904 (1983)

("The General Rule in Connecticut....").

This Court has no power to review

decisions of a state court interpreting

state law. n this case, the Connecticut

Supreme Court went out of its way to make

it clear that its decision was based only

on State law and on no other law. This

Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of

the matter.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari

should be denied.

a submitted,

Pee

, Me

Cy A Zé oC

4 JOHN R. WILLIAMS

Attorney for Respondent