How Cases Get Transferred to the CT Supreme Court

I sometimes wonder what I get out of my Connecticut Bar Association membership. Three or four times a year I get a copy of the Connecticut Bar Journal and every other issue has a long article that is probably a sleep aid to non-lawyers, but is of interest to me.

Anyway, former Supreme Court justice David Borden wrote a short (by lawyer standards) essay on the whys and hows that the Connecticut Supreme Court transfers cases. On occasion and from on high, the Supreme Court reaches down to takes an appeal from the lower Appellate Court before they rule.

Appellate lawyers often had no idea why this would happen, nor know how to make or prevent it from happening in any particular case.

Justice Borden would know, since he is the fella that came up with the guidelines for why it happens. The mystery is gone, at least if you read the Connecticut Law Journal.

I would link to the article, but it is not on the CBA website. Back issues can be found here.

This same issue also has in it a "Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure." Though this headline uses most peoples' three favorite words ("procedure," "roadmap," and "Connecticut") if you are a litigator, it is a good read. Can never go wrong going back to fundamentals.

Supreme Court Draws The Line On Habeas Filings for Petitioners

Kind of a difficult area of the law to understand when you get lost in it like some post-conviction lawyers (myself included). Anyone incarcerated has the writ to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which that person contests the legality of their detention.

Prisoners file them frequently. They can be based on anything from newly discovered evidence to the ineffectiveness of a trial lawyer to prison conditions. The State, through post-conviction prosecutors, often argues that the prisoner is "abusing the writ." I always take that to mean that, in their view, the prisoner has adequately tested the legality of his or her conviction and the conviction should now stand undisturbed.

The Supreme Court will be releasing its decision in Turner v. Commissioner of Correction on December 22, 2009 and let stand that inmate's conviction. The decision can be found here.

Take a look at the final footnote. What struck me is that the Supreme Court often decides that it cannot decide a matter because "no controversy exists" and by that they mean that they will avoid speculating on an outcome when nothing is really at stake. In this footnote, the Supreme Court appears to be saying that they will view any future petition filed by Turner as an abuse of the writ. Trouble is, he hasn't filed one yet.

How can we know what it would say? Shouldn't we wait until Turner files another petition -- if he does -- to determine if he is abusing anything?