Flaherty v. Warden of Conn. State Prison
| Decision Date | 26 April 1967 |
| Citation | 229 A.2d 362,155 Conn. 36 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Leo B. FLAHERTY, Jr. v. WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON. |
Raymond J. Cannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant).
Leo B. Flaherty, Jr., Rockville, for appellee (plaintiff Saia).
Before KING, C. J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
On January 21, 1966, Anthony J. Saia, a prisoner confined in the state prison, filed an application with the Superior Court, requesting the appointment of counsel to represent him in a habeas corpus proceeding. On January 26, the court appointed the petitioner, a practicing attorney, to represent Saia. Practice Book § 472D. The court instructed the petitioner to consult with Saia at the prison with reference to the application. At regular visiting hours, the petitioner went to the prison and requested that he be allowed to confer with Saia. Permission was granted the petitioner to confer with Saia in a visiting room, approximately fifty-fix feet by thirty-nine feet in size, which is provided for prisoners to see visitors and attorneys. For security reasons there were, as usual, two guards in this room. The guards were in a position to overhear any conversation carried on in normal tones between the petitioner and Saia. Saia, therefore, refused to talk with the petitioner in the visiting room because he could not communicate with him privately. Petitioner then sought permission to use one of two small private rooms located at one end of the visiting room which have clear window glass between them and the visiting room and which the defendant permits state's attorneys, state police officers and parole officers to use for private consultations with prisoners. Permission to use either of these rooms was refused on the ground that the proposed use would be contrary to prison regulations. Whether those were regulations adopted by the state prison directors pursuant to § 18-3 of the General Statutes or were established by the defendant himself is not disclosed by the finding. Claiming that the defendant prevented Saia from privately consulting with the petitioner, the petitioner instituted the pending habeas corpus action.
From the foregoing facts, the court concluded that, in refusing to accord Saia and his attorney an opportunity to engage in a private conversation, the defendant prevented Saia from exercising a constitutional right, and that habeas corpus was a proper remedy to enforce that right. Judgment was rendered discharging Saia from custody unless, within a reasonable period of time, the defendant afforded Saia and his attorney an opportunity to converse privately in a room without the presence of any other person who could overhear the conversation. From the judgment the defendant appealed, claiming that the court erred in concluding that Saia had a constitutional right to confer privately with his attorney and in concluding that the petitioner pursued a proper remedy.
The right to be represented by one's counsel in a proper postconviction proceeding is an integral and indispensable part of due process of law. A consultation is obviously necessary to enable the attorney to gain information so that he can properly advise his client. The right to consult with one's counsel includes the right to consult without being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vincenzo v. Warden
...cannot properly be reviewed on habeas corpus.' " Sanchez v. Warden, 214 Conn. 23, 33, 570 A.2d 673 (1990), quoting Flaherty v. Warden, 155 Conn. 36, 40, 229 A.2d 362 (1967). When a habeas petition is properly before a court, the remedies it may award depend on the constitutional rights bein......
-
Washington v. Meachum
...is obviously necessary to enable the attorney to gain information so that he can properly advise his client"); Flaherty v. Warden, 155 Conn. 36, 39, 229 A.2d 362 (1967) (same). " '[T]he denial of opportunity for appointed counsel to confer, to consult with the accused and to prepare his def......
-
State v. Woods
...1046, 108 S. Ct. 704, 98 L. Ed. 2d 870 (1988) ... State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 42 n.5, 463 A.2d 573 (1983) ... Flaherty v. Warden, 155 Conn. 36, 39, 229 A.2d 362 (1967) .... [T]he denial of [this right] ... could convert the appointment of counsel into a sham and nothing more than a form......
-
State v. Ferrell
...the due process concerns raised by the actions of the police here are essentially the same as those discussed in Flaherty v. Warden, 155 Conn. 36, 39, 229 A.2d 362 (1967), where we said: "The right to be represented by one's counsel in a proper postconviction proceeding is an integral and i......