Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82j (2025)

(Formerly Sec. 54-23). Detention of witnesses. Warrant

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon the written complaint of any state's attorney addressed to the clerk of the superior court for the judicial district wherein such state's attorney resides, alleging (1) that a person named therein is or will be a material witness in a criminal proceeding then pending before or returnable to the superior court for such judicial district, and in which proceeding any person is or may be charged with an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, and (2) that the state's attorney believes that such witness is likely to disappear from the state, secrete himself or otherwise avoid the service of subpoena upon him, or refuse or fail to appear and attend in and before such superior court as a witness, when desired, the clerk or any assistant clerk of the court shall issue a warrant addressed to any proper officer or indifferent person, for the arrest of the person named as a witness, and directing that such person be forthwith brought before any judge of the superior court for such judicial district, for examination. The person serving the warrant shall bring the person so arrested before the judge for examination as soon as is reasonably possible and hold him subject to the further orders of the judge. The person serving the warrant shall also notify the state's attorney of such arrest and of the time and place of such examination.

(1949 Rev., S. 8760; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 144; February, 1965, P.A. 574, S. 44; P.A. 73-116, S. 20; 73-667, S. 1, 2; P.A. 74-183, S. 135, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 527, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 80-313, S. 42.)

History: 1959 act substituted circuit court for trial justice or municipal court; 1965 act deleted obsolete provision for bringing arrested witness before common pleas court judge; P.A. 73-116 added references to judicial districts and substituted “Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers” for “State Prison”; P.A. 73-667 changed effective date of P.A. 73-116 from October 1, 1973, to April 25, 1973; P.A. 74-183 replaced circuit court with court of common pleas, reflecting reorganization of judicial system, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 deleted reference to proceedings pending before common pleas court, reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, and applied provisions to cases involving imprisonment for more than one year, deleting specific reference to imprisonment in Somers facility, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 deleted references to counties; P.A. 80-313 made minor changes in wording but made no substantive changes; Sec. 54-23 transferred to Sec. 54-82j in 1981.

Cited. 5 CA 347.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: State v. Bennett, 155 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2017).
State v. Bennett, 155 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 8× “It is evident that the defendant meant General Statutes § 54-82j, not § 54-84j, a point that the trial court later clarified.”
Milner v. Duncklee, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 54-2a (authorizing "the Superior Court” to issue bench warrants and capiases under appropriate circumstances), and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 54-82j (authorizing "the clerk or any assistant clerk” of the Superior Court to issue warrant for arrest of material witness in criminal case),…”
State v. Gray, 271 A.3d 101 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 12× “I The defendant first claims that his federal due process right against testimony resulting from pressure or coercion was violated when Wright, Gomez, and Hall, who were material witnesses, were arrested and taken into custody pursuant to the material witness statute, General…”
State v. Maiocco, 498 A.2d 125 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “” It should also be noted that the delay is still well within the bounds of the eighteen month maximum period for initiating trial mandated by General Statutes § 54-821 and Practice Book §§ 956B, 956C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.