Final Grand Jury Report Concerning Torrington Police Dept., In re

Decision Date03 December 1985
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesIn re FINAL GRAND JURY REPORT CONCERNING the TORRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Ralph G. Elliot, with whom was William S. Fish, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff Hartford Courant Co.).

Elliott F. Gerson, Deputy Atty. Gen., with whom were Peter E. Wiese, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on brief, Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., and Stephen J. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant (plaintiff Lester J. Forst).

Carl Schuman, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on brief, were John J. Kelly, Chief State's Atty., and Brian J. Kornbrath, Law Student Intern, for appellee (state).

Edward F. Spinella, Hartford, for appellee (intervenor Robert W. DePretis).

Joseph F. Keefe, with whom, on brief, was David A. Moraghan, Torrington, for appellees (intervenors John Meneguzzo et al.).

Before PETERS, C.J., and HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and CALLAHAN, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The issue in this case is the extent to which the public or interested parties may have access to testimony, exhibits and evidence received by an investigatory grand jury. On January 13, 1984, the chief court administrator, acting pursuant to General Statutes § 54-47(b), 1 appointed Judge John D. Brennan to conduct a "private" investigatory inquiry 2 into professional gambling and other crimes allegedly involving members of the Torrington police department. When he had concluded his investigation, Judge Brennan, in accordance with General Statutes § 54-47(g), 3 filed his report and all documents relating thereto with the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford. The trial court, O'Connell, J., on December 10, 1984, directed release of part of the Brennan report to the public, but ordered the remainder of the report to be sealed. Thereafter, the Hartford Courant (hereinafter the Courant), the commissioner of the department of public safety (hereinafter the commissioner) and three employees of the department of public safety separately petitioned the trial court, under § 54-47(g), for release of the transcripts and exhibits relating to that part of the report which had been made public. The petitions for release of these documents were opposed both by the office of the chief state's attorney, on behalf of the state, and by individual intervenors who had been either witnesses or the subject of testimony before the grand jury. 4 The trial court granted the petition of the commissioner in part, but denied the remaining petitions. The Courant and the commissioner have appealed.

The facts underlying the present appeal are undisputed. The part of the Brennan report that was made public by the trial court 5 contained a number of observations that were highly critical of the performance of individually named state police officers and of the division of state police in general. The report was especially critical of the manner in which the state police had conducted an investigation of former Chief Justice John A. Speziale. The report suggested that its findings "may call for action by various administrative agencies." The commissioner of public safety is the administrative head and commanding officer of the state police. General Statutes § 29-1b(b). The Brennan report engendered much public comment.

The petition of the Hartford Courant for release of the transcript invoked the portion of § 54-47(g) that authorizes the court to make a transcript of investigatory grand jury proceedings available to "the public." The Courant premised its petition on significant public interest in full disclosure of the evidence that had led to the disturbing findings contained in the Brennan report.

The petition of the commissioner of public safety relied on the provision of § 54-47(g) authorizing release of grand jury transcripts to "interested parties." The commissioner represented that the allegations contained in the Brennan report required him to undertake an investigation of the conduct of the state police. For his investigation, he alleged his need for access to and copies of all relevant testimony, exhibits and evidence introduced before the grand jury. He claimed furthermore that his investigation would require the questioning of the witnesses before the grand jury, and he therefore asked that they be released from their oath of secrecy. Finally, he sought permission to share and use this information as he deemed proper in the course of his investigation and in taking appropriate action.

During the hearings held on these petitions, the trial court's interim rulings granted the commissioner's petition in part. The court accepted a stipulation that the commissioner would need the transcripts to conduct the most thorough investigation possible. The court thereafter released to the commissioner grand jury materials consisting of testimony of state police officers Bernard DePrimo, John Kamens and Orlando Moranino. These materials were made public by the commissioner. The court also lifted the oath of secrecy to the extent that it prevented grand jury witnesses from answering questions of investigators representing the commissioner.

In the process of its final ruling on these petitions, the trial court made two further significant findings of fact concerning the nature of the grand jury proceedings themselves. First, the trial court found that the grand jury investigation of the Torrington police department had not terminated upon the issuance of the Brennan report. Despite the title of the Brennan report, which appeared to signal that the Torrington inquiry had been brought to a final conclusion upon the completion of the Brennan investigation, the trial court expressly noted the appointment of a successor investigatory grand jury on the same subject. Second, the trial court determined that the testimony before the grand jury of public officials other than state troopers was closely intermeshed with testimony of and about private individuals involved in the subject matter of the investigation. The court found that the transcripts "ranged over a variety of subjects and a variety of persons, many of whom are private citizens with no connection to these proceedings other than a fleeting and casual mention of their names."

In the light of this factual record, the trial court interpreted the governing statute, § 54-47(g), to deny each of the petitioners the full disclosure of the transcripts that each was seeking. The statute provides that "the court shall direct whether, and to what extent, the report [and the transcript] shall be made available to the public or interested parties." Recognizing that this language conferred upon the court the discretion to order disclosure, the court stated that its exercise of discretion required it to balance the public interest in disclosure against the security interest of the witnesses before the grand jury. The court noted the absence of any authoritative guidelines, either in the statute itself or in the decisions of this court, about how the court's discretion was to be exercised. Relying on the well established policy of the law that grand jury proceedings remain secret, the court therefore indicated that it would look for guidance to federal cases which have required the party seeking access to grand jury material to make a showing of particularized need for the disclosure sought. In the remainder of its opinion applying the underlying balancing test to the exercise of its discretion, however, the court did not again expressly advert to the standard of particularized need.

In order to facilitate the application of the balancing test to the facts before it, the trial court divided the grand jury transcript into two parts, one relating to the class of witnesses whom the court categorized as private citizens, and one relating to employees of the department of public safety, i.e., state troopers. For private citizens, the court held that "[t]he perils of disclosure ... vastly outweigh any conceivable benefit to the Commissioner or to the public." The court noted the undesirability of defeating the expectations of privacy of witnesses before the investigatory grand jury and the importance of enabling the ongoing investigation then proceeding under a successor grand jury to enlist the cooperation of future witnesses. For state troopers, the court found that the lesser expectation of privacy of public officials justified the court's limited release of their testimony to the commissioner, whose investigatory need the court acknowledged, but not to the public at large.

Accordingly, the petition of the Courant was denied in its entirety, while the petition of the commissioner was further granted in part. The commissioner was given access to the transcript of the testimony of witnesses "who are full-time permanent employees of the Department of Public Safety" but not to the transcript of any other witnesses. This further partial release to the commissioner, who had expressed his amenability "to any protective order deemed necessary by the court," was conditioned upon a detailed order precluding public disclosure of the transcripts. 6

The Courant and the commissioner have filed separate appeals from the trial court's whole or partial denials of their petitions for disclosure. These appeals, which have been consolidated for hearing in this court, as they were in the trial court, present overlapping but not identical issues. The central issues of law that emerge from both appeals are (1) the propriety of the trial court's reliance on a standard of particularized need in its § 54-47(g) determination and (2) the scope of this court's review of the trial court's decision. In each appeal there are thereafter distinct questions about the application of the governing rules to the particular litigants. Opposition to the further release of transcripts has been briefed in this court not only by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • State v. Aversa
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 3, 1985
    ......        After a jury trial, the defendant, Benny Aversa, was convicted ..., approximately 300 yards from the town's police station. The defendant was in the store for ... elapsed between the broadcast of Gentle's report and Wood's observation of the car. The parking ......
  • State v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 1986
    .......         The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. ... for the simultaneously abolished indicting grand jury system. Reasoning by analogy from the well ... In re Final Grand Jury Report Concerning the Torrington ... the defendant had given a statement to the police in which he admitted that he had accompanied ......
  • State v. Badaracco, AC 36087
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • April 21, 2015
    ...... the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of bribery in violation of General ... to a Superior Court judge to influence a grand jury, (2) the court made improper evidentiary ...'s Attorney who had investigated Brunetti's report of the defendant's alleged bribe. During his ...'s identity and his cooperation with the police, the Peeler brothers conspired to kill the boy. ...III         The defendant's final claim is that the court improperly limited his ....) In re Final Grand Jury Report Concerning the Torrington Police Dept ., 197 Conn. 698, 707, ......
  • State v. McCoy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 7, 2019
    ...... the judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial of one count of murder in violation of ..., the sole witness, was questioned by the police. When the police asked Murray to identify the ... court further stated: ‘I haven't given my final rulings on this because I have to see what the ...See, e.g., Adams v. Dept. of Correction , Docket No. ...2 206 A.3d 749 Most of our case law concerning the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts ...See In re Final Grand Jury Report Concerning the Torrington Police ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT