grand jury hearing in Connecticut

1991In discussing the failure to raise a grand jury claim as it relates to trial counsel, the court in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 , 266 , stated in part as follows: The principle value of counsel to the accused in a criminal prosecution often does not lie in counsel's ability to recite a list of possible defenses in the abstract, nor in his ability, if time permitted, to amass a large quantum of factual data and inform the defendant of it.

1991CT Page 2476 In discussing the failure to raise a grand jury claim as it relates to trial counsel, the court in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 , 266 , stated in part as follows: The principle value of counsel to the accused in a criminal prosecution often does not lie in counsel's ability to recite a list of possible defenses in the abstract, nor in his ability, if time permitted, to amass a large quantum of factual data and inform the defendant of it.

1991This Court initially notes that both State v. Madera, supra, and State v. Gilnite, supra, cited with approval the United States Supreme Court cases of Tollett v. Henderson, Parker v. North Carolina, McMann v. Richardson, and Brady v. United States.

1991This Court initially notes that both State v. Madera, supra, and State v. Gilnite, supra, cited with approval the United States Supreme Court cases of Tollett v. Henderson, Parker v. North Carolina, McMann v. Richardson, and Brady v. United States.

1996Thereafter, we set aside the judgment in State v. Biller, supra, 190 Conn. 594 , because the trial court improperly had admitted statements that had been compelled from the defendant by the grand jury in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

1988State v. Castonguay, 194 Conn. 416, 421 , 418 A.2d 56 (1984).

1986Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 364 , 76 S. Ct. 406 , 100 L.

1986Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 364 , 76 S. Ct. 406 , 100 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986This court has refused to set aside convictions despite a constitutionally erroneous instruction to the grand jury on the presumption of innocence; State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 283-84 , 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S. Ct. 856 , 66 L.

1986This court has refused to set aside convictions despite a constitutionally erroneous instruction to the grand jury on the presumption of innocence; State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 283-84 , 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S. Ct. 856 , 66 L.

1986This court has refused to set aside convictions despite a constitutionally erroneous instruction to the grand jury on the presumption of innocence; State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 283-84 , 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S. Ct. 856 , 66 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986Ed. 2d 799 (1981); a recognized abuse of discretion in excluding a defendant from the grand jury hearing; State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 633 , 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928 , 103 S. Ct. 2088 , 77 L.

1986This court has refused to set aside convictions despite a constitutionally erroneous instruction to the grand jury on the presumption of innocence; State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 283-84 , 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S. Ct. 856 , 66 L.

1986This court has refused to set aside convictions despite a constitutionally erroneous instruction to the grand jury on the presumption of innocence; State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 283-84 , 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S. Ct. 856 , 66 L.

1985“The obligation to appear is no different for a person who may himself be the subject of the grand jury inquiry.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 , 10 n.8, 93 S. Ct. 764 , 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973).

1985“The obligation to appear is no different for a person who may himself be the subject of the grand jury inquiry.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 , 10 n.8, 93 S. Ct. 764 , 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973).

1984Though this practice has been routinely validated; see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.; United States v. Brummitt, supra, 529 ; State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 547 , 356 A.2d 125 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846 , 96 S. Ct. 84 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); in light of our holding that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of Duren, the trial court need not have reached this issue.

1984Though this practice has been routinely validated; see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.; United States v. Brummitt, supra, 529 ; State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 547 , 356 A.2d 125 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846 , 96 S. Ct. 84 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); in light of our holding that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of Duren, the trial court need not have reached this issue.

1984Though this practice has been routinely validated; see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.; United States v. Brummitt, supra, 529 ; State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 547 , 356 A.2d 125 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846 , 96 S. Ct. 84 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); in light of our holding that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of Duren, the trial court need not have reached this issue.

1984Though this practice has been routinely validated; see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.; United States v. Brummitt, supra, 529 ; State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 547 , 356 A.2d 125 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846 , 96 S. Ct. 84 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); in light of our holding that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of Duren, the trial court need not have reached this issue.

1984Though this practice has been routinely validated; see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.; United States v. Brummitt, supra, 529 ; State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 547 , 356 A.2d 125 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846 , 96 S. Ct. 84 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1975); in light of our holding that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of Duren, the trial court need not have reached this issue.

1982State v. Piskorski, supra, 681 ; State v. Cobbs, supra; State v. Delgado, supra, 539 ; State v. Vennard, supra; State v. LaBreck, 159 Conn. 346, 347-48 , 269 A.2d 74 (1970); State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283 , 224 A.2d 718 (1966); see Practice Book § 609.

1982State v. Piskorski, supra, 681 ; State v. Cobbs, supra; State v. Delgado, supra, 539 ; State v. Vennard, supra; State v. LaBreck, 159 Conn. 346, 347-48 , 269 A.2d 74 (1970); State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283 , 224 A.2d 718 (1966); see Practice Book § 609.

1982State v. Piskorski, supra, 681 ; State v. Cobbs, supra; State v. Delgado, supra, 539 ; State v. Vennard, supra; State v. LaBreck, 159 Conn. 346, 347-48 , 269 A.2d 74 (1970); State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283 , 224 A.2d 718 (1966); see Practice Book § 609.

1982State v. Piskorski, supra, 681 ; State v. Cobbs, supra; State v. Delgado, supra, 539 ; State v. Vennard, supra; State v. LaBreck, 159 Conn. 346, 347-48 , 269 A.2d 74 (1970); State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283 , 224 A.2d 718 (1966); see Practice Book § 609.

1982We have no occasion, therefore, to decide whether some modification of our rule excluding counsel from the grand jury hearing should be made where a substantial mental deficiency appears. in The claim of error based upon the inclusion in the charge to the petit jury of the statement, “[e]very person is presumed to intend the natural and neces *481 sary consequences of his . . . acts,” has been a familiar subject of consideration in this court since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 , 61 L.

1982We have no occasion, therefore, to decide whether some modification of our rule excluding counsel from the grand jury hearing should be made where a substantial mental deficiency appears. in The claim of error based upon the inclusion in the charge to the petit jury of the statement, “[e]very person is presumed to intend the natural and neces *481 sary consequences of his . . . acts,” has been a familiar subject of consideration in this court since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 , 61 L.

1982His support; Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L.

1982His support; Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L.

1977These last facts, standing alone, however, are not sufficient to exclude the identification testimony; State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77 , 273 A.2d 863 , cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L.

1977These last facts, standing alone, however, are not sufficient to exclude the identification testimony; State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77 , 273 A.2d 863 , cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L.

1977These last facts, standing alone, however, are not sufficient to exclude the identification testimony; State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77 , 273 A.2d 863 , cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L.

1977These last facts, standing alone, however, are not sufficient to exclude the identification testimony; State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77 , 273 A.2d 863 , cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L.

1973The same view of the scope of the word “proceeding” was taken in United States v. Friedland, 444 F.2d 710, 712 .

1963Such need formed the basis of the finding in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 55 .

1938In spite of the rules promulgated in Lungs Case, supra, it has been held that the accused has no absolute right ever to be present at the taking of testimony before a grand jury.