Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 26.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: January 24, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 368 Words, 2,195 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/17470/2056.pdf

Download Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut ( 26.1 kB)


Preview Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:02-cr-00264-AHN

Document 2056

Filed 01/24/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) WALTER A. FORBES ) ------------------------------

Criminal No. 3:02CR00264(AWT)

NOTICE TO PARTIES On Tuesday, January 17, 2006, the court informed the parties that it had some comments about the discussion at the end of the prior court day, i.e., January 11, 2006, but that the court had been concentrating on preparing the readback of testimony and would get back to those comments later. See Tr. at 4120:6-9.

The court has concluded that it is most workable to simply issue those comments in written form, and thus it is issuing this notice. The discussion referred to by the court on January 17, 2006 is the discussion found at pages 4114-4115 of the transcript. The court wished to make it clear that when it stated that defendant Forbes had made a fair request, it was commenting only on the statement starting at the second half of line 1 of page 4115 and continuing through line 3 of page 4115. For any party

to argue that the court's statement at lines 4 and 5 of page 4115 represented an agreement by the court with the defense's characterization of defense's reaction to the court's statement, or the defense's characterization of the effect of the court's

Case 3:02-cr-00264-AHN

Document 2056

Filed 01/24/2006

Page 2 of 2

statements, or, (assuming arguendo that some sort of curative statement to the jury would have been appropriate) that there was no way to make such a statement to the jury, would be a misinterpretation of the court's comment. In fact, the court

found it curious that the defense, which has never been bashful about making assertions or demands in this case, did not alert the court on January 10, 2006 that it had at least a potential concern, as opposed to waiting until the end of the day on January 11 to say anything. The clerk shall docket this notice as a "Notice to Parties re Trial Transcript, page 4120, lines 6-9." It is so ordered. Dated this 24th day of January 2006, in Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/ Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

2