# Opposition Brief — Connecticut v. Couture > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1792%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 469 U.S. 1192 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1792%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.