State’s Attorney Explains Criminal Justice System At Citizen Police Academy

By Andrew Gorosko

The chief law enforcement officer for the Judicial District of Danbury explained the state’s criminal justice system to participants at the Citizen Police Academy, describing the workings of the criminal courts, which annually handle thousands of cases forwarded to them by police.

Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky, III, provided a case study of a past violent incident to illustrate the anatomy of a crime, the subsequent criminal charges, and their eventual disposition in Superior Court.

Mr Sedensky, a Newtown resident, became the Danbury state’s attorney in February, succeeding Walter D. Flanagan, who retired after serving nearly three decades in that post.  

As state’s attorney, Mr Sedensky works closely with area chiefs of police in performing his duties. Besides Danbury, the judicial district includes Newtown, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Sherman, Redding, and Ridgefield.

“I represent the people of the State of Connecticut,” Mr Sedensky said.

The prosecutor spoke at the April 25 session of Citizen Police Academy, a free informational program for the public sponsored by the Newtown Police Department, which focuses on law enforcement issues and the criminal justice system.

Local police, like police in other municipalities, in effect, work for the state court system, providing information on criminal cases to the courts when the police make arrests, explained Sergeant Christopher Vanghele, who coordinates the academy for town police.

At Citizen Police Academy, Mr Sedensky described how a criminal case may reach the courts.

The victim of a violent crime reports the incident to someone, after which the victim may be taken to a hospital. Police are notified of the hospital visit, after which police conduct an investigation. Police would then assemble investigational evidence and testimony as components of an arrest warrant application. If the police case is sound and exhibits “probable cause,” or reasonable grounds for presuming the guilt of the accused person, a prosecutor would endorse the warrant application.

Whether prosecutors believe that they can prove the case in court is a key factor in whether they pursue an arrest warrant, Mr Sedensky said. 

With a prosecutor’s endorsement, the police’s warrant application is sent to a judge for review. If a judge considers the criminal case to have sufficient merit, he or she would sign an arrest warrant.

Police would then serve the warrant against the accused person.

The Process

“An arrest starts the whole process…with the ultimate goal of a trial,” Mr Sedensky said.

Following the arrest, the person’s bail would be set. An initial court appearance, or arraignment, would follow at which the charges against the accused would be formally presented. The accused may enter a plea to the charges, after which the amount of bail would be reevaluated.

If the defendant can post bond for that bail, he or she would be released until the next court appearance in the case. Other conditions of release would be placed on the defendant.

If the defendant cannot cover the bail, the person would be held in jail until the next court appearance.

The state’s attorney’s staff prosecutes the charges against the defendant. The defendant’s private attorney provides a defense against the charges. If the person cannot afford an attorney, a court-appointed public defender handles those duties.

Mr Sedensky said that the wishes of a crime victim are now given more weight in the prosecution of a criminal case than they were given in the past. There are some cases in which a victim may want the state to drop charges against a defendant, while prosecutors want to proceed with the case, he noted.

Many people charged with crimes take advantage of a variety of “diversionary programs” created by the state legislature, which provide defendants with legal alternatives to proceeding to trials of their cases, Mr Sedensky said. “There are a number of programs available,” he said.

Such diversionary programs include the alcohol education program for people charged with drunken driving; the accelerated rehabilitation program, which is a form of pretrial probation; the community service labor program; the drug education program for drug offenders; the family violence education program for people facing charges originating from domestic violence; the school violence education program for those charged with school-related crimes; and the youthful offender program for people charged with crimes who are either 16 or 17 years old.

Many people who are facing criminal charges seek participation and receive court acceptance for diversionary programs, Mr Sedensky said.

“The [diversionary] programs are there. We want people to use the programs,” he said.

Defendants not participating in diversionary programs may either plead guilty to the charges against them or plead not guilty and proceed to a trial in court.

Criminal cases may be disposed of by a court in as little as a single court appearance, Mr Sedensky said. A case may be resolved in two months’ time, he added. But most court cases are resolved between eight and 15 months after an arrest, he said.

Pretrial conferences involving the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and judge may be conducted in seeking to reach a plea bargain agreement, under which the prosecution and the defense would agree on some sanctioned compromise to dispose of the criminal case. The terms of such plea bargains vary depending upon the specific circumstances of a case.

Mr Sedensky said that in entering a pretrial conference, he gauges the strength of the state’s case against a defendant, considers the defendant’s criminal record, and weighs the victim’s attitude about the case. He said he considers the state’s likelihood of a getting a conviction in a trial when making recommendations to a judge on a case’s disposition.

“The more serious a case, the less willing we [prosecutors] are to change the charges,” he said.

“Most cases do not go to trial,” Mr Sedensky said, noting that 95 percent of cases never reach a trial.

But if a case does get to trial, the proceedings are public.

“It’s a public trial. Anyone can watch it,” he said. Most trials have few spectators, he added.

At trial, the burden of proof rests with the state, as the state must prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, he said. The defendant is entitled to hear the testimony of all witnesses.

If a defendant is convicted, the conviction may be appealed to higher courts on the basis of errors in law having been committed at the Superior Court trial, he said.

Background

Following his recent appointment as state’s attorney, Mr Sedensky said, “I want to continue the good work that Walter Flanagan did and add my signature to it…I’m looking forward to the position of state’s attorney.” Mr Sedensky said he plans to continue working as a prosecutor on criminal cases in the courtroom while serving as the state’s attorney.

A senior assistant state’s attorney in Danbury since January 2004, Mr Sedensky is nationally recognized for his work in the prosecution of child abuse cases.

Mr Sedensky joined the state’s Division of Criminal Justice in July 1984 as a deputy assistant state’s attorney at Geographical Area No. 2 in Bridgeport. He transferred to the Judicial District of Bridgeport (Part A) in 1987 and was appointed supervisory assistant state’s attorney in the Statewide Prosecution Bureau of the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney in April 2000, a position that he held until his transfer to Danbury in January 2004.

While serving as the senior assistant state’s attorney in Danbury, Mr Sedensky took part in the investigation and prosecution of major felony cases including murders, financial crimes, and child and adult sexual assaults. Mr Sedensky is a member of the Governor’s Task Force on Justice for Abused Children.