The next one is Molly Doe No. 1.
(Pause
in the proceedings.)
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: Good morning.
MS.
MOLLY DOE NO. 1: Good morning,
Justices. Thank you for allowing all of
us to have this opportunity to address particular issues that we feel are most
pressing. This morning I’d like to
discuss a review of the automatic appellate stay that is addressed in the
Connecticut Practice Book.
Connecticut
Practice Book Rule 61-11 states that:
Except where otherwise provided by statute or other law, proceedings to
enforce or carry out the judgment or order shall be automatically stayed until
the time to take an appeal has expired.
If an appeal is filed, such proceedings shall be stayed until the final
determination of the cause.
And
the Practice Book Rule 61-14 states: The
sole remedy of any party desiring the Court to review an order concerning a
stay of execution shall be a motion for review under Section 66-6. Execution of an order of the Court
terminating a stay of execution shall be stayed for 10 days from the issuance
of notice of the order and if a motion for review is filed within that period,
the order shall be stayed pending decision of the motion, unless the Court
having appellate jurisdiction rules otherwise.
In
practice, one family law judge in Stamford, Connecticut, is routinely ordering
that if a party files an appeal of any issue, the 61-11 stay is hereby lifted
prospectively. That same family judge
and at least one family -- another judge in Middletown is also continuing with
proceedings where the stay had been lifted, but a motion for review is pending
under 61-14.
These
judges do not believe that 61-14 applies in divorce proceedings which -- and in
the Connecticut Practice Book still maintains that divorce proceedings are
civil proceedings. For an example, in a
recent Stamford divorce case, a family law judge awarded an AMC a large sum of
money without hearing evidence as to the financial circumstances of the
parties. The order was followed by the
statement that should that party appeal, the automatic stay is hereby lifted.
In
another case, that same judge continued with proceedings where one party
appealed her finding that the spouse was not in contempt for failing to produce
a single, signed tax return for himself or for any of the multiple trusts of
which he is a beneficiary -- of which he was an admitted beneficiary.
The
aggrieved party filed a motion for an appeal.
The judge lifted the stay. The
aggrieved party then filed a motion for review in following the Connecticut
Practice Book rules. The judge ignored
the fact that the motion for review was filed and sent the case to trial.
Requested
suggestions that -- the Practice Book Rule 61-11 should be amended to state
that no judge may prospectively lift the automatic stay and Practice Book Rule
61-14 should be amended to clearly state that a motion for review suspends the
lifting of a stay under 61-11 in all proceedings, including those involving
divorce. If this is already obvious,
then family law judges should be trained in these Practice Book rules.
Another
issue I’d like to discuss is a litigant’s ability to listen to his or her audio
tapes of her -- of proceedings. The
current procedure states that if any party or other individual challenges the accuracy
of a transcript produced from an audio recording, arrangements may be made with
the official court reporter for that person to listen to the audio recording
and compare its contents with the transcript.
The
official court reporter or a designee shall be present at all times that the
audio recording is being played to the requesting person and such playing shall
be at a time of mutual convenience to the person in the court reporter’s
office. The source of that document is
the judicial branch audio access policy memo dated January 8, 2009.
In
practice, in --
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: You can finish your
sentence.
MS.
MOLLY DOE NO. 1: Okay. In all but one judicial district, litigants
are permitted to listen to audio tapes of their proceedings. Inexplicably, a different rule is followed in
the Stamford family court. The court
reporter’s office refuses all requests to listen to audio tapes. In order to hear the tape, the litigant must
file a motion with the family law judge and hope for a favorable ruling.
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: All right, Ms. Doe,
let’s --
MS.
MOLLY DOE NO. 1: Okay.
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: All right. Thank you very much. We’re going to take a very brief recess.
MS.
MOLLY DOE NO. 1: Thank you.
(The
Court stands in recess.)
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment