compelling need test in Connecticut

2017This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S.Ct. 2094 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 710 (2004) ; State v. Slimskey , supra, 257 Conn. at 859 , 779 A.2d 723 ("[h]aving determined that the evidence in issue was especially probative and having concluded that there was no other available means of inquiry into the victim's propensity

2014This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in gen- eral.’’ [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S. Ct. 2094 , 158 L.

2017This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S.Ct. 2094 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 710 (2004) ; State v. Slimskey , supra, 257 Conn. at 859 , 779 A.2d 723 ("[h]aving determined that the evidence in issue was especially probative and having concluded that there was no other available means of inquiry into the victim's propensity

2017This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S.Ct. 2094 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 710 (2004) ; State v. Slimskey , supra, 257 Conn. at 859 , 779 A.2d 723 ("[h]aving determined that the evidence in issue was especially probative and having concluded that there was no other available means of inquiry into the victim's propensity

2020Dur- ing argument on the motions, the court indicated that it needed to apply the compelling need test set forth in ‘‘the Ullmann case . . . .’’ See Ullmann v. State, 230 Conn. 698 , 716–21, 647 A.2d 324 (1994).

2020Dur- ing argument on the motions, the court indicated that it needed to apply the compelling need test set forth in ‘‘the Ullmann case . . . .’’ See Ullmann v. State, 230 Conn. 698 , 716–21, 647 A.2d 324 (1994).

2000State v. Thompson, 20 Conn. App. 290, 296 , 567 A.2d 837 (1989).

2000State v. Thompson, 20 Conn. App. 290, 296 , 567 A.2d 837 (1989).

2017See State v. Santiago , 305 Conn. 101 , 235-36, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (after in camera review, trial court must disclose "any records that are material to [the defendant's] case in mitigation"), superseded in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 1 , 122 A.3d 1 (2015) ; State v. Esposito , supra, 192 Conn. at 180 , 471 A.2d 949 ("relevant material" must be disclosed); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 58, 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed. 2d 40 (1987) (information " 'material' " to defense must be disclosed); cf. C.

2017See State v. Santiago , 305 Conn. 101 , 235-36, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (after in camera review, trial court must disclose "any records that are material to [the defendant's] case in mitigation"), superseded in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 1 , 122 A.3d 1 (2015) ; State v. Esposito , supra, 192 Conn. at 180 , 471 A.2d 949 ("relevant material" must be disclosed); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 58, 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed. 2d 40 (1987) (information " 'material' " to defense must be disclosed); cf. C.

2017See State v. Santiago , 305 Conn. 101 , 235-36, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (after in camera review, trial court must disclose "any records that are material to [the defendant's] case in mitigation"), superseded in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 1 , 122 A.3d 1 (2015) ; State v. Esposito , supra, 192 Conn. at 180 , 471 A.2d 949 ("relevant material" must be disclosed); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 58, 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed. 2d 40 (1987) (information " 'material' " to defense must be disclosed); cf. C.

2017See State v. Santiago , 305 Conn. 101 , 235-36, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (after in camera review, trial court must disclose "any records that are material to [the defendant's] case in mitigation"), superseded in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 1 , 122 A.3d 1 (2015) ; State v. Esposito , supra, 192 Conn. at 180 , 471 A.2d 949 ("relevant material" must be disclosed); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 , 58, 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed. 2d 40 (1987) (information " 'material' " to defense must be disclosed); cf. C.

2017This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S.Ct. 2094 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 710 (2004) ; State v. Slimskey , supra, 257 Conn. at 859 , 779 A.2d 723 ("[h]aving determined that the evidence in issue was especially probative and having concluded that there was no other available means of inquiry into the victim's propensity

2017This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general." [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S.Ct. 2094 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 710 (2004) ; State v. Slimskey , supra, 257 Conn. at 859 , 779 A.2d 723 ("[h]aving determined that the evidence in issue was especially probative and having concluded that there was no other available means of inquiry into the victim's propensity

2017The court determined that the compelling need requirement would properly strike a balance "between the right of expert witnesses to be free from testifying against their will and the needs of the court and litigants for testimony." Id., at 88 , 589 N.W.2d 21 .

2017The court determined that the compelling need requirement would properly strike a balance "between the right of expert witnesses to be free from testifying against their will and the needs of the court and litigants for testimony." Id., at 88 , 589 N.W.2d 21 .

2016In State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. at 684 , 529 A.2d 1245 , this court considered whether a child victim in a case involving alleged sexual abuse could testify through the use of a video recording made outside the defendant's physical presence.

2016In State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. at 684 , 529 A.2d 1245 , this court considered whether a child victim in a case involving alleged sexual abuse could testify through the use of a video recording made outside the defendant's physical presence.

2010Ed. 2d 892 (1996), our Supreme Court observed that “the requirement of a threshold showing of compelling need is necessary to prevent frivolous attempts to call prosecutors or defense counsel as witnesses.” Although the present action is civil, rather than criminal, in nature; Collins v. York, 159 Conn. 150, 153 , 267 A.2d 668 (1970); we nonetheless are persuaded that the rationale for the compelling need test applies in the present habeas trial, as well.

2010Ed. 2d 892 (1996), our Supreme Court observed that “the requirement of a threshold showing of compelling need is necessary to prevent frivolous attempts to call prosecutors or defense counsel as witnesses.” Although the present action is civil, rather than criminal, in nature; Collins v. York, 159 Conn. 150, 153 , 267 A.2d 668 (1970); we nonetheless are persuaded that the rationale for the compelling need test applies in the present habeas trial, as well.

2005This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 265 Conn. 460, 474 , 828 A.2d 1216 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S. Ct. 2094 , 158 L.

2005This compelling need test strikes the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for information and, on the other hand, the potential adverse effects on the attorney-client relationship and the judicial process in general.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 265 Conn. 460, 474 , 828 A.2d 1216 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1029 , 124 S. Ct. 2094 , 158 L.

2001State v. Mathis, 59 Conn. App. 416, 423 , 757 A.2d 55 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 941 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000); State v. Colton, 234 Conn. 683, 701-702 , 663 A.2d 339 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140 , 116 S. Ct. 972 , 133 L.

2001State v. Mathis, 59 Conn. App. 416, 423 , 757 A.2d 55 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 941 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000); State v. Colton, 234 Conn. 683, 701-702 , 663 A.2d 339 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140 , 116 S. Ct. 972 , 133 L.

2001State v. Mathis, 59 Conn. App. 416, 423 , 757 A.2d 55 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 941 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000); State v. Colton, 234 Conn. 683, 701-702 , 663 A.2d 339 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140 , 116 S. Ct. 972 , 133 L.

2001State v. Mathis, 59 Conn. App. 416, 423 , 757 A.2d 55 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 941 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000); State v. Colton, 234 Conn. 683, 701-702 , 663 A.2d 339 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140 , 116 S. Ct. 972 , 133 L.

1995See United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172 , 1176 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Birdman, supra, 553 ; United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 942 , 96 S. Ct. 1410 , 47 L.

1995See United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172 , 1176 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Birdman, supra, 553 ; United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 942 , 96 S. Ct. 1410 , 47 L.

1995See United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172 , 1176 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Birdman, supra, 553 ; United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 942 , 96 S. Ct. 1410 , 47 L.

1995See United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172 , 1176 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Birdman, supra, 553 ; United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 942 , 96 S. Ct. 1410 , 47 L.