NO:

MMX-CR14-0675616T

SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF MIDDLESEX

v.

AT MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

EDWARD F. TAUPIER

OCTOBER 17, 2014

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID P. GOLD, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S :

Representing the State of Connecticut:

ATTORNEY BRENDA L. HANS
Assistant States Attorney
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

Representing the Defendant:

ATTORNEY RACHEL
Rachel M. Baird
8 Church Street
Torrington, CT

M. BAIRD
& Associate
#3b
06790

Recorded By:

2
Carrie Bogdan
Transcribed By:
Carrie Bogdan
Court Recording Monitor
1 Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

1
1
2

THE COURT:

I just want to, kind of, set an

order now as to how were going to proceed here.

As I understand it, in the Taupier case, todays

hearing is under the provisions of State v. Fernando

A., and it concerns the protective order that the

Court entered in one of the files.

its -- what is the docket number, Attorney Hans, of

what it sometimes has been called the voyeurism file?

ATTY. HANS:

10

And perhaps

Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

But whats the docket number of

12

ATTY. HANS:

Docket Number CR13-0200821-T.

13

THE COURT:

So thats what we could call the

14

voyeurism file.

15

understanding that you have asked, or adopted prior

16

counsels request, that there be a Fernando A.

17

Hearing concerning the continued need for that

18

protective order that was entered in that voyeurism

19

file?

11

that?

20

And Attorney Baird, its my

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

The voyeurism file is from

21

May of 2013 and the protective order issued on

22

September 4th, 2014.

23

THE COURT:

Correct.

Are we in agreement on

24

that?

The protective order was entered, by this

25

court, on 9-4 of this year, which was, I believe, the

26

first date on which Mr. Taupier had appeared here

27

after he had been arrested in what is, we could call

2
1

the threatening file, and after the, a number of guns

had been seized in the firearm, pursuant to the

firearm risk warrant, 9-4 was your clients first

date here after appearances in Hartford?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

And Ms. Hans,

you agree thats sort of where we stand?

what I did is I put together a chronology, and I

wanted to make sure that I understood it correctly.

10
11

Its my understanding that the defendant was

arrested on August 29th --

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

14

threatening -ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- in an incident -- and correct me,

Attorney Baird, stop me if Im wrong on this --

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

19

THE COURT:

20

Yes.

-- which was a Friday, for

15

17

Because

I have it --

-- but he was arrested on the

29th --

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

22

THE COURT:

-- right here.

-- for threatening.

On that same

23

date -- he was arrested by warrant, incidentally, for

24

threatening.

25

had obtained what is commonly referred to as a

26

firearms risk warrant that was executed at the

27

defendants address at 6 Douglas Drive, Cromwell.

On that same date police had sought and

3
1

I believe he may have, simultaneously, been arrested,

pursuant to the arrest warrant, for threatening.

The defendant then, on that warrant of arrest,

was held, perhaps for a day or so, on a cash only

bond.

post that bond in fairly quick order.

I dont know, but he apparently was able to

ATTY. BAIRD:

The same day.

THE COURT:

And the firearms risk warrant was executed by

The same day.

All right, thank you.

10

the police and certain firearms and ammunition were

11

seized, that was Friday, the 29th, the 30th and the

12

31st were the weekend, that Monday was Labor Day.

13

So on the 2nd the defendant, I believe, made his

14

first court appearance in Hartford in connection with

15

the threatening case.

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

And just to clarify, on the

17

uniform arrest report he was originally told by

18

Trooper Dejesus (phonetically) that he needed to

19

appear on September 12th.

20
21

THE COURT:

Okay.

So the date was moved up.

All right.

But he did appear

on the 2nd --

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

23

THE COURT:

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

He did.

-- which would be the Tuesday.

And the two conditions on the

25

arrest warrant, signed by Judge Mullarkey, were

26

35,000 cash bond and mental health.

27

THE COURT:

Okay.

Thank you.

4
1
2

On 9-2 the defendant appeared before Judge

Alexander --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- in Hartford.

And Judge Alexander

issued, at that time, additional -- well, first she

raised the defendants bond by an additional

$40,000.00 cash and set forth a number of additional

conditions on the defendants bond, I believe --

9
10
11
12

ATTY. BAIRD:
THE COURT:

Yes.
-- which of record appear.

One of

which ordered the defendant to possess no weapons.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

And her reasoning for

13

those additional conditions of bond, and increased

14

bond, were a violation of a family civil court order.

15

THE COURT:

All right.

And I guess we maybe

16

then, given that youve brought that up, let me then

17

kind of cover that aspect of the case as well, which

18

Attorney Baird, I think, properly brings up.

19

It is the Courts understanding, based on its

20

review and judicial notice that its taken of another

21

file in which there is a dissolution action pending,

22

that back on March 6th of 2013 the family court that

23

was then participating in the dissolution of marriage

24

action entered an order that, I believe, adopted the

25

parties agreement.

26

defendant to surrender any and all guns that he

27

possessed to the custody of a named individual,

And that order required the

5
1

furthermore, prohibited the defendant from retrieving

those guns from that identified individual and

prohibited the defendant from obtaining any new guns

during the pendency of the dissolution action or

until further order of the court.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Youre correct that that was an

agreement.

there was no restraining order.

Am I correct?

It was not under a restraining order,

THE COURT:

Yeah.

But that agreement then

10

became adopted by a court order entered by the family

11

court.

12
13
14

Am I correct in my understanding?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

A family court order subject

to a motion for contempt if not followed, correct.

THE COURT:

All right.

So -- now jumping

15

forward again to September 2nd of 14, the defendant

16

made his first court appearance on the threatening

17

charge before Judge Alexander.

18

in addition to raising the defendants bond, imposed

19

a possess no weapons condition.

20

representing that Judge Alexanders decision was

21

based on the fact that she viewed the defendant to be

22

in noncompliance with the family court order from

23

March 6th, 2013.

24

And Her Honor then,

Counsel is

The defendant, at that point, on 9-2, had a few

25

days earlier, I believe, about 12 or 13 guns taken

26

from his home --

27

ATTY. HANS:

Thats correct, Your Honor.

6
1

THE COURT:

-- and it was Judge Alexanders

opinion, at that point, that the defendants

continued possession of those guns would have been in

violation of the family court order entered back in

March of 13.

6
7

The defendants increased bond, as set by Judge

Alexander, was then posted by the defendant --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

The next day.

-- on 9-3, I guess.

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

11

THE COURT:

Yes.

And then the defendant had been

12

ordered to appear here on 9-4, and he appeared,

13

having already posted bond, before this court on 9-4.

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

15

THE COURT:

Yes.

Okay.

On 9-4 the State moved for me

16

to set -- or issue an order of protection, a

17

protective order in the --

18

ATTY. HANS:

Voyeurism case.

19

THE COURT:

-- the voyeurism case.

20

ATTY. HANS:

Thats correct, Your Honor.

21

THE COURT:

And either on that day when the

22

court issued the order, or sometime shortly

23

thereafter, prior counsel, I believe Mr. Donovan, who

24

had been counsel of record in the voyeurism case

25

until recently, had put the State on notice that the

26

defense wished to challenge the continued necessity

27

for the protective order under the case of State v.

7
1

Fernando A. at 294 Conn. 1, correct?

ATTY. HANS:

addressing that issue.

State v. Fernando A., the case that you just cited,

said that a request for a Fernando Hearing must be

made at the outset when the request for a protective

order was made.

8
9

Yes, Your Honor, Im just

I just would point out that

That request was weighed by -- well not weighed,

but Mr. Jelly posed, Jeff Jelly, former counsel,

10

posed no opposition, whatsoever, on the 9-4 request

11

of a protective order.

12
13

THE COURT:

So now we have --

Oh, was Mr. Jelly here on 9-4 or was

it Mr. Donovan who was here on 9-4?

14

ATTY. HANS:

Well Jeff Jelly is the -- my

15

distinct recollection is that counsel, who indicated

16

that he took no position on the protective order at

17

that time, procedurally, he should have requested his

18

Fernando Hearing under the case law 46b-38c.

19

And so I think, at this point, you know, the

20

ship has sailed.

21

protective order, they should have at least said,

22

hey, were contesting this protective order lets

23

hold a Fernando Hearing and that wasnt done back on

24

9-4.

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. HANS:

27

If they were going to contest the

All right.
The latest motion by Counsel Baird

is dated September 15th, 2014.

8
1

THE COURT:

Let me correct something that I said

concerning what was, or who was counsel of record on

9-4, the date the protective order issued.

think that Attorney Hans is right, and Im directing

this to you, Attorney Baird, if I could, I believe at

that time on 9-4 Mr. Taupier had two attorneys of

record in the voyeurism case.

8
9

On 9-4 I

And I believe counsel for the State is correct

that it was not only Attorney John Donovan that

10

represented Mr. Taupier at the time, but also

11

Attorney Jeff Jelly had filed, in addition to Mr.

12

Donovan.

13

two attorneys of record on the voyeurism case.

14

So that on 9-4, in fact, Mr. Taupier had

Now, I think in my comments a moment ago I said

15

that on 9-4 Mr. Donovan was here with his client.

16

But as I search my memory I dont recall whether it

17

was Attorney Donovan or Attorney Jelly, it may have

18

been Attorney Jelly, because I have some

19

recollection, I dont recall exactly who was here

20

that day but counsel, Mr. Taupier was represented by

21

counsel that day on 9-4.

22

transcript of the 9-4 hearing, but I do not recall

23

that on that date that the protective order issued

24

that Mr. Taupiers attorney, or attorneys, did

25

request, on that date, that a Fernando A. Hearing be

26

scheduled.

27

And I have not seen a

And Ill ask for your input on this because in

9
1

reviewing State v. Fernando A. the holding of that

case, and its -- the holding appears two or three

times, but Im looking at the one at 294 Conn. at

page 25 the court says that after a criminal

protective order has been issued at arraignment a

defendant is entitled upon his request made at that

time to a more extensive hearing to be held within a

reasonable period.

And that same holding appears at page 30 where

10

the Supreme Court held the trial court is required

11

to hold, at the defendants request made at

12

arraignment, a subsequent hearing within a reasonable

13

period of time wherein the State will be required to

14

prove the continued necessity of the order.

15

Now, admittedly, the defendants appearance here

16

on 9-4 would not have been his arraignment on the

17

voyeurism charge, because that case had been already

18

pending for a considerable time, but it was the

19

appearance at which the protective order issued.

20

So, to the extent that the spirit of Fernando A.

21

is that the request for a Fernando A. Hearing must be

22

made at the time, at the time that the protective

23

order is issued.

24

How, Attorney Baird, do you respond to Ms. Hans

25

claim that not having indicated on 9-4 a desire to

26

have a Fernando A. Hearing that he cannot now seek

27

one?

10
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

My understanding of the case is

that Attorney Donovan did request such a hearing, in

very short form, on September 4th.

clerks file would represent when it was requested

or?

THE COURT:

And maybe the

Well, there is a written motion for

a Fernando Hearing filed by Attorney Donovan on 9-15.

And again, have the parties looked at the transcript

of 9-4?

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

I have, and I dont have it in

11

this notebook right here, but my memory is that

12

theres a very short little clip in the middle of it

13

where he just says Fernando Hearing and the Court

14

says okay.

15

THE COURT:

Well, I mean is that --

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

19

THE COURT:

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

And then it follows up from there.

-- something that you can access?

I can access it, yes.

Now or is it available to you?

Its available, yes.

I would have

21

to look in the box under there because I dont have

22

the transcript --

23

Preliminarily, Your Honor, can I also argue, at

24

this point, that the voyeurism case involves

25

voyeurism and distribution of voyeuristic material

26

arising from a May, 2013 arrest.

27

September of 2014 a protective order enters.

And then in
And a

11
1

protective order applicable to a family violence case

and that the voyeurism case was not a family violence

case.

family violence case, but if I could check with the

clerk but it just, it seemed inapplicable -- so it

was void from the start, one might say, and never

existed because it was --

8
9

I dont know if its marked in the file as a

THE COURT:

Well, youll certainly be able -- I

mean, youll be able to raise that claim.

Whether or

10

not thats to be raised as a Fernando claim or as

11

something, I guess, something else.

12
13

ATTY. HANS:

Your Honor, I believe that would be

a motion to vacate the Courts order.

14

But it is the States position that under 46b-

15

38a(1) family violence means any incident resulting

16

in physical harm, bodily harm or assault or an act of

17

threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent

18

physical harm.

19

underlying charges of assault or threatening for this

20

particular victim.

It doesnt say that we have to have

21

The Court made findings, based upon the

22

armaments that the defendant had in his possession

23

and other things, and based upon family violences

24

recommendation that a protective order should ensue

25

for the wife and her two young children.

26
27

So, I dont think that theres any statutory

prohibition of issuing a protective order when the

12
1

circumstances, obviously, warrant it just because

there is not a violent case charged.

doesnt say that, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

just a second.

said?

The statute

Well --

Let me just -- Ill hear from you in

What was the statute that you had

ATTY. HANS:

family violence.

10

THE COURT:

11

ATTY. HANS:

12

THE COURT:

Im looking at the definition of

Yeah.
46b-38a(1).
All right.

So, youre claiming that

13

the Court didnt, given the nature of the voyeurism

14

charge, that theres no basis for a court to issue a

15

protective order period.

16

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

And I think what the

17

prosecutor just argued supports that theory because

18

everything that shes arguing happened in the 2014

19

case, not the 2013 case.

20

In the 2014 case the threatening and harassment,

21

the family services report even says this is a threat

22

against the judge.

23

THE COURT:

Right.

24

ATTY. BAIRD:

Its not a family violence case

25

and so protective order couldnt issue in the 2014

26

case.

27

2013 case.

So, to circumvent that, she went back to the

13
1

But the problem is thats not a family violence

case either.

family violence and a protective order issued.

And so we have two cases that are not

ATTY. HANS:

And Your Honor I would just respond

to that, under 46b-38c it says there shall be family

violence response and intervention units in the

Connecticut Judicial system to respond to cases

involving family violence.

charges involving family violence.

10

It doesnt say regarding

Obviously gray circumstances arose during the

11

voyeurism case which may, which compelled the State

12

to protect the victim in the voyeurism case, and her

13

two children, to seek a full protective order.

14

doesnt say charges, Your Honor.

15

It

And I would also submit to you, in the

16

alternative, that the threatening in the first degree

17

case involving divorce, the divorce -- the judge who

18

presided over the divorce proceedings wasnt a

19

violent -- well, was a threaten violence case that

20

also had ramifications for the victim because all the

21

armaments were found in his house, there were

22

statements made during these acrimonious divorce

23

proceedings.

24

Certainly the law is not so narrow as to not

25

allow a victim, and her two children, to have the

26

courts protection when someone retrieves weapons in

27

violation, direct violation of the family court

14
1
2

order.
THE COURT:

Thats the States position that the

court could have issued a protective order in the

threatening case?

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, because -- I mean

if shes claimed to the charges I know that the

threatening involved the judge who presided over the

divorce proceedings, thats just a charge that

emanated because the divorce proceedings have been so

10
11

acrimonious and volatile.

Certainly I dont think I could have issued an

12

order as to Ms. -- well, actually I think, I think

13

that the clerk initially put them under both cases,

14

Your Honor, because this is a divorce proceeding

15

involving Ms. Taupier.

16

the divorce proceedings all of the armament issues

17

arose, the threats and the volatile situation quickly

18

came to head.

19

prohibited, I dont see anything in the statute that

20

would prohibit me from doing it.

21

So, in the commencement of

So, I dont see why she would be

ATTY. BAIRD:

I just want to clarify, for the

22

record, there are words being bandied about, such as

23

armaments, and I know in certain motions arsenal,

24

theres no allegation here that there was an armament

25

or theres nothing of the sort.

26

clarify the record for that and not just ramp this up

27

into something its not.

And I just want to

15
1

THE COURT:

What was seized is of record.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Exactly.

For guns.

And 42 high caliber ammunitions that

had to be registered with the State of Connecticut

for assault rifles.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

I believe theyre called --

Okay --- high capacity --

-- counsel please --

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

11

ATTY. HANS:

12

THE COURT:

-- magazines.
Yeah.

Whats important is what the record

13

shows.

14

includes guns, ammunition and so forth, Im aware of

15

what was seized so Im not going to make rulings

16

based on who classifies it or characterizes it as one

17

thing or another.

18

what was seized.

19

So, items were seized from the defendant, it

All right.

Ill make my decision based on

So your point is that, the defenses

20

point is that the court did not have the authority to

21

issue a protective order.

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

Right.

And in tandem with that is

23

the motion to dismiss that we just filed regarding

24

the voyeurism and the distribution of voyeurism

25

relying on a case from April of this year finding

26

that plain view is an element of the statute.

27

THE COURT:

Well, but thats -- to me thats

16
1

neither here nor there at this point.

There is a

pending case.

is a case that would support a protective order, the

issue now is whether the protective order is going to

remain in effect.

ATTY. BAIRD:

So, if there is a pending case, if it

I mean I did review the statute

that the prosecution has referenced.

The voyeurism

charge does not meet the elements of that statute

because if it had then it would have been referred to

10

family violence at the arraignment or it would have

11

been treated as a family violence case, it wasnt.

12

The protective order that issued on 9-4 of 2014

13

has one docket number on it, 2013; it does not have

14

the threatening case docket number on it.

15

comes out of that case, it wasnt a family violence

16

case, so a protective order couldnt have issued in

17

that case.

18

THE COURT:

So, it

So, it seems to me that the first

19

issue is whether or not the court has the authority

20

to issue a protective order in, I guess, either of

21

these pending cases.

22

ATTY. HANS:

Well, Your Honor, thats a

23

different animal, I mean, were here on a Fernando

24

Hearing that was not requested.

25

akin to a motion to vacate the courts order with an

26

accompanying memorandum of law, I mean thats --

27

THE COURT:

So that would be

Well, thats true but -- well does

17
1

the State want to go ahead then with the, its your

burden so do you want to begin now, the Fernando

Hearing, even if I end up determining that either

(a) I didnt have the authority to issue a protective

order in the first instance, or (b) that the

defendant has waived his right to make a Fernando

Hearing.

the evidence of the, relevant to the Fernando issues,

if there are procedural bars either to the issuance

I mean, I see no reason to go ahead with

10

of the order in the first instance, or the challenge

11

to it after the fact.

12

ATTY. HANS:

And Im in complete agreement in

13

the interest of judicial economy that those are

14

threshold issues.

15

THE COURT:

16

ATTY. HANS:

Right.
What I do want to alert the Court

17

to that there are three motions to quash that have

18

been filed.

19

THE COURT:

Im going to turn my attention to

20

that.

21

have to be adjudicated first, which would involve a

22

claim which -- Attorney Baird, have you previously

23

argued that the Court was without authority to grant

24

the protective order?

25
26
27

It seems to me that these procedural matters

ATTY. BAIRD:

I first appeared in this court on

October 9th -THE COURT:

Right.

18
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

-- and I filed my appearance a

couple days previous.

have been going on I was called into trial in

Waterbury.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

At the same time that these

No, Im not challenging you -So --

Its the first time -Right.

-- Ive been reviewing whats been

10

submitted but things are coming in fast and furious

11

so I cant say Ive read every single filing.

12

ATTY. BAIRD:

13

THE COURT:

It is the first time I --

So this is a new claim which is one

14

that Id like to hear from the parties on and it

15

seems to me to be a threshold issue.

16

ATTY. HANS:

17

THE COURT:

I agree.
And I see no reason to conduct an

18

evidentiary hearing if there is a statutory

19

procedural issue that has to be addressed first.

20

But I will say that I would look at this issue

21

now as whether or not I had the authority to issue a

22

protective order in either of the criminal cases.

23

So, Im going to need the parties to examine that and

24

Im going to have to do it as well.

25

If I had the authority to grant an order in

26

either of the docket numbers, a protective order,

27

then the next question, it seems to me, is whether or

19
1

not the challenge to it and the election -- or the

effort to trigger a Fernando Hearing was timely made

and whether or not the language in the Fernando A.

holding is mandatory.

request for Fernando A. Hearing has to be made at the

time of the issuance of the order.

second issue.

8
9

So thats the

You say it may even be in the transcript.

So,

youll have a chance to --

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

11

have to find the date.

12

In other words that the

THE COURT:

It is in a transcript.

I just

Well, you know, it will be in a

13

transcript because I remember Attorney Donovan saying

14

one day --

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- in court I want a Fernando A.

17

Hearing.

18

of 9-4, is it possible someone said something then?

19

I recall it happening later at a subsequent hearing

20

before, Attorney Baird, you were involved.

21

recollection is that it didnt come up on the 4th,

22

but I could be mistaken, and maybe theres a passing

23

reference to it that has slipped my mind.

24

that seems to be issue number two.

25

those two issues are resolved in a certain way that

26

we get to the actual Fernando A. Hearing itself.

27

Now, again, I havent read the transcript

ATTY. BAIRD:

My

So, but

Its only if

And as a caveat I would argue that

20
1

if it turns out the Fernando A. Hearing was not

requested timely that -- well, let me not get

ahead -- I would argue that because this is in the

2014 case and that the family protective order, the

protective order doesnt apply to the 2013 case.

an order issued in this case he could, again, make

that timely election.

THE COURT:

9
10

If

So, if the order goes into the other

file then you would want that done on the record so

that you could timely raise the Fernando claim.

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

12

THE COURT:

13

ATTY. HANS:

Right.

I understand, okay.
But, Your Honor, I would just point

14

out to the Court that if there had been a request for

15

a Fernando Hearing, as pursuant to the case, one

16

would have been scheduled on 9-4 because its a due

17

process claim.

18

if a request is made the Court Ive never known not

19

to honor it.

And I think the Court immediately --

So, I just --

20

THE COURT:

21

ATTY. HANS:

22

THE COURT:

23

ATTY. HANS:

24
25

Well, Im not --- dispute that a --- Ive already --- dispute that a request was made

on 9-4.
THE COURT:

-- said its my recollection that it

26

wasnt made at that time.

But, am I correct in my

27

understanding that on that date the order entered

21
1

only in the voyeurism case?

I know you made a comment that initially it was

going to be in both but Im asking the question in

point of fact it issued only in the voyeurism case,

as I understand it?

that appears in the threatening case?

Is there any protective order

The clerk is indicating, I guess, the original

protective order that was prepared, I guess by

family, didnt bear one docket number or the other.

10

One was typed in, the second one was written on.

11

it may be unclear unless the 9-4 transcript says it.

12

So, you have a copy of the 9-4 transcript?

13

suggesting Im going to read it now, but.

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

I do.

So

Im not

And I have a copy of an

15

order of protection here with a docket number on it,

16

but.

17

THE COURT:

Is it a single number or is there a

18

handwritten number beneath it or just one docket

19

number?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

Its just one docket number.

21

ATTY. HANS:

And I have the same --

22

THE COURT:

Thats the voyeurism one?

23

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

24

ATTY. HANS:

CR-13.

25

THE COURT:

Well, it appears as though the clerk

26

maybe -- does the actual order appear in only one of

27

the files or does it appear in both?

All right.

The

22
1

order, apparently, appears in both.

seem to me, Im going to have to look at what was

said on 9-4.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

But it would

I can get that.

Thank you.

Then the thing that I

think needs to be covered today is, in fairness to

the many people that have been subpoenaed here, are

the motions to quash.

Fernando A. allows the Court to determine the manner

Because in the first incident

10

in which this hearing is going to be conducted.

11

hearsay evidence, at least reliable hearsay evidence,

12

would be permitted; the Rules of Evidence need not be

13

strictly applied.

14

defendants case is concerned the court, at page 29

15

says, the court suggests that the defendant should

16

initially be required to make a proffer of relevant

17

evidence.

18

I suspect the proffer would be in an effort to show

19

that there was no continued necessity of the

20

protective order, but I see that as a proffer by

21

counsel which the Court could hear without evidence

22

initially but just on the proffer itself.

23

And

And actually insofar as the

And then upon that proffer being made, and

If the Court would hear that proffer and say

24

even if all that was supported by reliable evidence

25

it would not, in the Courts opinion, lead the Court

26

to vacate the protective order, then there wouldnt

27

be the need for that evidence to be formally

23
1

presented.

I would essentially accept your proffer

as true and provable to determine whether it would

make a difference in my mind.

So, it seems to me that we should, before

concluding today, address the three or four motions

to quash.

filed a motion to quash on behalf of an attorney that

Ms. Baird subpoenaed.

is here, having filed a motion to quash, also filed

I know that Attorney Peck is here, having

I understand that Mr. Palmer

10

on behalf of an attorney that you subpoenaed, Ms.

11

Baird.

12

who I was, I didnt speak to but who identified

13

themselves from the Judicial Branch perhaps?

I believe theres also representatives here

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

THE COURT:

Legal Aid, Ms. Shay from Legal Aid.

And Legal Aid is here.

I only see

16

that now.

I didnt meet the legal aid attorney, but

17

apparently there is -- are you Attorney Shay?

18

ATTY. SHAY:

19

THE COURT:

20

I am.
All right.

Attorney Giovanna Shay

from Legal Aid is here to quash the subpoena of --

21

ATTY. HANS:

22

THE COURT:

It would be Linda Allard.

Attorney Allard.

And I guess that

23

subpoena perhaps because it was duces tecum also

24

directed certain demands on Ms. Allards employer,

25

which is Legal Aid Greater Hartford.

26

And are there attorneys here from the Branch?

27

ATTY. SHEY:

The Judicial Branch attorney.

24
1

ATTY. HANS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. HANS:

4
5

Yes, Adam -Mauriello I think.

Yes, sir.

brought a motion to quash.

THE COURT:

Mauriello has also, has

There are four.

Hes moving to quash I think a

subpoena that was directed to a family relations

officer, that was all that I heard.

8
9
10
11

ATTY. BAIRD:
services.

Yes.

Keeper of records, family

And I believe it was a Andrew Spurrier

that may have responded to that.

THE COURT:

All right.

So, I dont want to make

12

these parties appear again if it is for the sole

13

purpose of me announcing that your motion -- or their

14

motions to quash are granted.

15

So, Ill invite suggestions on how we should

16

proceed.

I mean, I could ask you to make a proffer

17

as to why this would all be relevant, if we get to

18

the Fernando Hearing.

19

the Fernando Hearing I have, some of me thinks it

20

might make more sense to excuse everyone, not require

21

them to come back at all until I rule on the

22

procedural matters.

23

disclose any records that have been subpoenaed in

24

addition to, I know, seeking the testimony of

25

witnesses, none of these individuals would be

26

required to disclose any information, will resolve

27

the procedural threshold issues if in fact we get to

Because we may never get to

They would not be required to

25
1

the point where there is going to be a Fernando A.

Hearing then well have it.

But at that point Ill require you, Attorney

Baird, to make a proffer as to the relevance and if

Im satisfied that there could be relevant evidence

then Ill hear from the lawyers on their respective

motions to quash.

8
9

But, because if I find that even if everything

you say is true it doesnt matter then that would end

10

it, wouldnt it?

11

ATTY. PECK:

12

Mr. Peck, I dont know if you -I did, Your Honor, I wanted to

address that issue, that housekeeping issue.

13

THE COURT:

All right.

So, let me -- and if any

14

of the other attorneys here on the motions to quash

15

want to be heard Ill hear from you now.

16

let Attorney Baird think of what Im proposing, hows

17

that?

18

ATTY. PECK:

19

THE COURT:

20

ATTY. PECK:

21

And Ill

May it please the Court.

Yes.
Attorney Michael Ruben Peck for

Attorney Ficarra who is in the courtroom, Your Honor.

22

We havent, the other quash attorneys have not

23

met.

I think it would be an advantage if the quash

24

lawyers could caucus and decide on how to respond to

25

your suggestion.

26

the subject, a written proffer, Your Honor, in short

27

order, notwithstanding where the procedural aspects

As it pertains to my thoughts on

26
1

go, would help us, at least help me, you know, frame

the kind of response that I want on my quash.

dont know where shes going with her proffer.

THE COURT:

All right.

I just

Then why dont we do

this, the lawyers that are here in support of motions

to quash, does anybody have objection to getting

together for a minute or two and seeing if you share

common interest, it can then be represented to me.

Attorney Baird you can, kind of, see how you see this

10

going.

11

ATTY. BAIRD:

Your Honor, also I faxed in a

12

request this morning, Im not sure if the Court has

13

gotten it.

14

jury trial to avoid all this as well.

15

to throw that into the mix.

16
17

But it was a request for an immediate

THE COURT:

Well, I did get a copy of it, at

some point today --

18

ATTY. BAIRD:

19

THE COURT:

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

So I just want

Okay.

-- but honestly I havent read it.

But thats pretty much its

essence.

22

THE COURT:

Well, Ill read through it.

But I

23

dont know if Im in a position to rule on that right

24

now.

25

So why dont we take 15 minutes.

The lawyers

26

that are here representing witnesses, who are the

27

subject of subpoenas, or agencies, can discuss their

27
1

shared interest, if any exists.

can take a look maybe for that 9-4 transcript --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Attorney Baird, you

Yes.

-- and see if there is a -- because

if thats taken care of, if there is a mention of it

on 9-4 that does eliminate that concern.

also will give Attorney Hans and Attorney Baird an

opportunity to see how they feel we should proceed.

And then it

My immediate concern now is not to inconvenience

10

those, the attorneys and the witnesses who have been

11

subject to subpoena, any more than I need to.

12

my initial thought is that its unnecessary, at this

13

point, to rule on motions to quash because we havent

14

yet determined whether a Fernando A. Hearing is going

15

to be heard.

16

But,

And maybe I should, before I let you all caucus,

17

are you suggesting that in lieu of the Fernando A.

18

Hearing that you want a trial?

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

The first case has been pending

20

for 18 months, hes locked up in his house, he cannot

21

do anything.

22

future.

23

He needs a trial to determine his

THE COURT:

Well, my concern about that is if

24

the orders enter in the other file, in the

25

threatening file, arent you still going to need a

26

Fernando A.?

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

Not if we have a trial.

The trial

28
1

would do away with all this.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

A trial on which file, both?

first case should be dismissed.

THE COURT:

voyeurism case?

Well, the first case meaning the

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

9
10
11
12
13

Yes.

And arent you making -- isnt there

a claim to dismiss the second one too?

ATTY. BAIRD:

I have not yet had a chance to

file that, but Im working on that.

THE COURT:

Well, I thought, did Mr. Shonhorn

(phonetically) file that?

14

ATTY. HANS:

15

THE COURT:

16

Well, I mean, our position is the

Yes, sir.
And I thought you had filed a motion

that said you adopted all the other motions.

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

THE COURT:

Okay.

So, I mean, I dont know whether, I

19

would suspect there is going to still be considerable

20

pretrial pleadings, responses, briefing, arguments

21

and so forth before the actual trials, assuming that

22

the motions to dismiss are denied.

23

say that those are going to be, theyre going to be

24

trials in the immediate future.

25

dismiss the voyeurism case, whats the basis of the

26

motion to dismiss the voyeurism case?

27

ATTY. BAIRD:

I mean, I cant

If you move to

Because, I have to look at the

29
1

motion because you can get it backwards very easily.

But basically theres a case out of Stamford, Norwalk

by Judge Wenzel called State v. John Panek.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

Im familiar with it.

one, exactly.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

And this case is just like that

So that the -So we rely on his reasoning and

his conclusions for this case.

10

THE COURT:

And then youre not yet at a point

11

where you can say what the motion is -- what the

12

grounds are for the motion to dismiss the threatening

13

case, at least at this point.

14

ATTY. BAIRD:

Its going to cite the recent

15

Supreme Court case of September 4th, 2014 State v.

16

Klijger, K-l-i-j-g-e-r, it could be the other way

17

around, but regarding true threats.

18

THE COURT:

True threats.

19

ATTY. BAIRD:

20

THE COURT:

Yes.

All right.

Well lets take 15

21

minutes and Ill see everybody back at a quarter to

22

12.

23

ATTY. HANS:

24

We can stand in a brief recess.

25

(COURT RESUMED FOR STATE V. TAUPIER AT 12:04

26
27

Thank you, Your Honor.

P.M.)
THE COURT:

So, why dont we address first the

30
1

motions to quash?

representative of the --

ATTY. PECK:

Mr. Peck, do you want to be the

No, sir, we caucused and each of

us, I think, in turn wants to present a point, Your

Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

Well, Mr. Peck, do you

want to go first or there an order agreed to among

the members of the caucus?

ATTY. PECK:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Well, with

10

regard to my position, Your Honor, were asking for a

11

written proffer.

12

chance to respond to the written proffer.

13

the, besides the timing issue of the proffer,

14

specificity as to what she wants out of my clients

15

file.

16

but the specificity in the proffer would be an

17

advantage to us.

18

and sister counsel, I only have an appearance in the

19

voyeurism case.

20

threatening case.

21

At some point that gives us a

And in

I can go through the subpoena now, Your Honor,

THE COURT:

I did not discuss this with brother

So, Ill refile an appearance in the

I understood the Court -Well, I guess if the motion to -- if

22

the Court ends up issuing the protective order in the

23

other file I suspect that counsel is still going to

24

be seeking the same information.

25

your willingness to file the appearance on behalf of

26

your client even if it gets shifted to a different

27

docket number.

So, I appreciate

But you want a written proffer

31
1

specifying what it is.

2
3

Do I understand, you represent an attorney who

represents Mrs. Taupier?

ATTY. PECK:

It may be helpful if each of us

establish who we are.

Michael Rubin Peck.

courtroom, is Geraldine Ficarra.

of record to Mrs. Taupier in the divorce case.

For the record, Im Attorney

My law partner, in the

We are both counsel

THE COURT:

And Attorney Baird has subpoenaed --

10

ATTY PECK:

My clients -- I mean, my law partner

11

and my client.

12

THE COURT:

Your law partner, and has sought by

13

way of duces tecum, the production of certain records

14

that are within your clients file?

15

ATTY. PECK:

Well, the word is certain is -- I

16

would take exception to the word certain.

17

she wants everything that we have pertaining to the

18

divorce file.

19
20

THE COURT:

Certain,

So among the issues that, I suppose,

concern you are privilege issues?

21

ATTY. PECK:

Yes, sir.

22

THE COURT:

All right.

So you want a specific

23

list of whats been sought and, I guess, I would want

24

to know why these materials wouldnt be privileged

25

under the attorney/client privilege provisions.

26
27

ATTY. PALMER:
also.

Your Honor, and work product

32
1

THE COURT:

And work product.

want to be heard next?

ATTY. SHAY:

THE COURT:

ATTY. SHAY:

Okay.

Do you

Thank you, Your Honor.

Youre welcome.
Giovanna Shay on behalf of Attorney

Linda Allard in Greater Hartford Legal Aid.

And we

have not figured, at all, in the voyeurism matter in

the threats case certain electronic communications

between Mr. Taupier and a third party came to

10

Attorney Allards attention and were forwarded to the

11

state police.

12

I have entered an appearance in both cases on

13

behalf of Attorney Allard and Greater Hartford Legal

14

Aid.

15

quash my concern, like Attorney Pecks, relates to

16

the breadth and the generality of the subpoena.

17

As of yesterday when I filed the motion to

I would ask, actually, that the Court quash this

18

subpoena duces tecum because it is simply too broad,

19

too general, seeking any and all information in your

20

possession regarding Edward Taupier, any and all

21

emails communications of whatever kind and nature

22

regarding Edward Taupier received by or sent by

23

yourself to any other person.

24

premature even to get into relevance.

25

So I think its

I think, under the case law if it is so broad,

26

lacks specificity, it should be quashed.

And that I

27

dont want to be back in the same situation at a

33
1
2
3

later date.
THE COURT:

Mr. Peck, is the subpoena directed

to your client equally as broad in its language?

ATTY. PECK:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. SHAY:

Further, Your Honor, although our

attorney/client privilege and work product privilege

issues are different in kind from Attorney Pecks

because we dont represent an individual client in

this matter.

They do exist in the case, and I raise

10

them in the motion in that this is so broad that it

11

could, in fact, infringe on communications between

12

Attorney Allard and her supervisors and GHLA, sort of

13

organizational attorney/client privilege response to

14

prior subpoenas in these matters, preparation of this

15

motion to quash, its that broad.

16

privilege issues as well.

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. HANS:

So we also have

Thank you.
Your Honor, if I can interject with

19

Ms. Allards attorney, a lot of materials were

20

actually the States Attorneys work product.

21

preparation for the risk hearing I had sent emails

22

and a list of questions I would be asking Attorney

23

Allard.

24

that, because I feel that I have a legitimate work

25

product exception and interest.

In

So I am also seeking to quash, in joining in

26

THE COURT:

Thank you.

27

ATTY. PALMER:

Mr. Palmer.

I think everyones pretty much

34
1

covered it, Your Honor.

5-1 of the Code of Evidence, the privileges regarding

work product, attorney/client privilege and the over-

broadness we would be happy.

THE COURT:

ATTY. PALMER:

If she could just address

And you represent Attorney Morano?

Yes, Your Honor, Attorney Morano

represents the wife as a victim of crime in this

case, Your Honor, as is defined by 1-1k of the

statutes.

10

So he is an attorney, he was subpoenaed as

an attorney.

11

THE COURT:

And I know --

12

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

13

THE COURT:

14

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Good afternoon.
Adam Mauriello for the

15

Judicial Branch Legal Services Unit for the three

16

family relations counselors under subpoena.

17

Just briefly, by way of background, the

18

defendant was also a defendant in the dissolution

19

proceeding.

20

conducted comprehensive evaluations regarding child

21

custody and access, in the course of that proceeding,

22

one of which was, is over a year old and one remains

23

pending.

24

The counselors Lauer and Rosario

Our position is consistent with, as stated by

25

counsel, I just wanted to make a couple of specific

26

points.

27

counselors, excuse me, Rosario and Lauer, based on

Our motion to quash with regard to the

35
1

Practice Book Section 25-60 provides that the

information in the family relations file is

confidential unless the court orders otherwise.

In regard to the overbreadth of the subpoena,

the specific concern we have is if there is

information in there regarding third parties that may

be sensitive, specifically the two minor children and

the defendants wife, who I would like a specific

proffer on those items if disclosure on that is

10
11

sought.
With regard to Counsel Spurrier, who is also

12

under subpoena, I have to confess, was not aware

13

until this morning that this was going to a Fernando

14

Hearing.

15

addressing my motion to quash but I would like to

16

just address orally regarding the proffer.

17

position that with respect to, to the extent this is

18

a domestic violence case, any information taken in by

19

Counsel Spurrier is not subject to subpoena at all.

20

So regardless of the proffer of the general statutes

21

46b-38c(c) we would argue that that information,

22

regardless of the proffer, is not subject to subpoena

23

and cannot be used for any other purpose.

24

Having learned that Counsel Spurrier is not

Im only, right now, appearing in the voyeurism

25

file, Your Honor.

26

me to appear on both files, but.

27

Its our

THE COURT:

I dont know if its necessary for

I guess if this issue ends up

36
1

getting transferred --

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

THE COURT:

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

5
6
7
8
9

I probably should, yes.

-- to a different docket number.

Ill enter my appearance in

the other file as well.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

All right.

Attorney --

thank you to the four of you.

Attorney Baird, the only, what Id like to hear
you on now is Attorney Shays claim, which is, I

10

think, been joined by all of the other attorneys that

11

on their face these subpoenas violate the rule that

12

bars subpoenas from being overbroad.

13

So, Id like to hear you on Attorney Shays

14

claim that these subpoenas, as phrased, which raise

15

everything from work product, attorney/client, they

16

dont exclude those items.

17

counsel who represents these witnesses?

18

subpoenas are -- dont even say were not seeking

19

privileged materials.

20

guess, extend from attorney/client to work product to

21

Mr. Mauriellos claim of privilege thats statutory

22

and protects certain victim service officers.

23

Am I correct to the
These

And those privileges would, I

So, how do you respond to the claim that really

24

what the Court should do on these motions to quash,

25

given the language of the subpoenas, grant the

26

motions to quash and then you would be free to draft

27

what would be an appropriate motion, which would

37
1

specify the information thats been sought so that,

first of all, that it would exclude anything thats

privileged, unless you have a claim that there should

be a breach of these multiple privileges.

want to hear your response to that.

ATTY. BAIRD:

And I just

Well, in requesting the

information that we requested, Your Honor, of course

counsel, if they believe information is privileged,

theyre not going to produce it.

Maybe they want to,

10

though.

11

client would waive the privilege, how would I know

12

that.

13

argument, which they have.

14

Its their clients privilege, maybe their

And so its up to them to raise the privilege

But with regard to Ms. Shay I was not under the

15

impression, I did not know that there were voluminous

16

emails involving Mr. Taupier that needed to be

17

classified into different categories.

18

are I could certainly do that.

19

THE COURT:

But if there

Well, I mean, I think the, kind of

20

the tenor of the claim here is youve essentially

21

filed four subpoenas, three of which are directed to

22

attorneys, of record, in pending cases saying give me

23

everything youve got.

24

flush strikes me as sort of the poster child for an

25

over -- an overbroad subpoena.

26

how it could be any broader than to say give me every

27

piece of paper youve got that pertains to either

And that, at least at first

I mean, I dont know

38
1

your client -- I dont know if it pertains to your

client as well as Mrs. Taupier.

know how that could not be deemed overbroad as

worded.

ATTY. BAIRD:

So, I just dont

So, in issuing the subpoenas to

the attorneys I have to tell them that if the

material is privileged dont turn it over.

8
9

THE COURT:

Well, no, I use that as an example

and perhaps a poor one.

I guess protected materials

10

can be identified by the subpoenaed party or their

11

counsel.

12

But I think generally speaking they would need

13

to be more than just a wholesale demand for

14

everything someone has in their file.

15

I mean am I correct in saying that these

16

subpoenas essentially say give me everything youve

17

got?

18
19
20

ATTY. BAIRD:

Unless there is a privilege or

claim not to.

THE COURT:

No, but I dont know.

So I say that

21

maybe that was a poor example because maybe in

22

thinking about it you may be right that if there is

23

privilege materials then maybe it becomes the burden

24

of the subpoena party to raise that.

25

But, Im just saying that looking at what youve

26

asked for and putting aside the privilege question,

27

it seems to me that the definition of an overbroad

39
1

subpoena is one that is unrestricted, unlimited and I

guess because Ive said it before, Ill say it again,

it asks for everything youve got.

that the definition of a, an overbroad subpoena?

ATTY. SHAY:

THE COURT:

ATTY. SHAY:

And I think isnt

Your Honor, may -Yes.

I agree.

Aside from the privilege

issues there is an issue about lack of specificity in

the subpoenas on their face.

And the Supreme Court

10

has said in State against Montgomery and Three Rivers

11

that that is a valid basis for a motion to quash.

12

That there isnt really even a need to get into the

13

relevance of specific pieces of information or

14

privilege issues regarding specific communications if

15

the subpoena is really sort of a fishing expedition

16

for unlimited discovery.

17

THE COURT:

I mean, Attorney Baird, would your

18

request then demand that you would be -- you are now

19

seeking the retainer agreements?

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

That would --

Well, no, Im just asking you, would

22

the wording of the subpoena cover the -- would it

23

cover a retaining -- the retainer agreement, would it

24

cover an email that said come to my office next week?

25

Would it cover every single piece of paper?

26

that Attorney Shay makes a fair claim that putting

27

aside the question of anything else, and perhaps even

I think

40
1

deferring to you on your claim that the recipient of

the subpoena initially bears the burden of raising

the privilege question, there still needs to be an

effort by the party issuing this subpoena to specify

what it is that he or she seeks by the subpoena.

Otherwise it is subject to a claim that its a

fishing expedition.

8
9

You havent said, in your subpoena, that you

want records that they may have in their file

10

pertaining to Mr. Taupier that deal with the question

11

of such and such.

12

everything that might pertain to Mr. Taupier and I

13

dont know whether its Mrs. Taupier as well, but

14

certainly Mr. Palmers client is the attorney for

15

Mrs. Taupier in the criminal case.

16

on behalf of the attorney of Mrs. Taupier.

17

Youve just said give me

Mr. Peck is here

So, I am inclined to agree with Ms. Shay, in

18

something that, I think, is joined by her brother and

19

sister counsel on that side of the table, that this

20

is overbroad, regardless of what else may be later

21

raised as a grounds not to disclose what is more

22

narrowly sought.

23

see it.

24

that we could, sort of, table this until we see if we

25

ever get to the hearing.

26
27

But thats actually now the way I

So, while it had initially been my thought

I think that parties who have been subpoenaed

and who have properly filed motions are entitled,

41
1

perhaps, to a ruling on it and shouldnt be later

required, if we ever get to this point, to renew this

claim concerning the overbreadth of the subpoenas.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Well, Ive learned a lot today,

Your Honor, because in issuing these subpoenas to

people who obviously have privileged information, the

attorney/client privilege, assuming there wouldnt be

that much more than the privileged information, I did

not know the request would be interpreted so over-

10

broadly.

11

information thats not privileged if in fact the

12

requests were so overbroad that I will frame the --

13
14

But it appears that there may be a lot of

THE COURT:

Well, yeah, I just cant imagine

what --

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

-- next subpoenas better.

I just cant imagine what these

17

people, if they were complying to the subpoena, could

18

not turn over from their file.

19

foolhardy for the attorneys representing these

20

clients, subject to a subpoena, to say that anything

21

in the file wouldnt fall within the purview of your

22

requests.

23

overbroad.

24

all the parties have moved to quash on, among other

25

grounds, on the grounds of overbreadth, that Im

26

going to grant the motions to quash.

27

I think it would be

So I think thats the definition of

And in light of that and assuming that

ATTY. BAIRD:

Is that the motions to quash the

42
1

testimony or --

THE COURT:

3
4
5

Well, its the motions to quash the

subpoenas that were issued.

As far as the motion might affect -- it doesnt
preclude new subpoenas from being issued.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

No, I know that, but --

And it doesnt say that these

witnesses are forever -- that the witnesses whose

testimony has been sought are immune from subpoena, I

10

have to -- Ill have to cross that bridge when I get

11

to it.

12

materials in the files are, as a matter of law, not

13

discloseable.

14

complex issue should we get to it.

15

It also isnt the conclusion that none of the

But, I mean, this is going to be a

I will say, however, Im going to require you to

16

make proffers on this in a manner that might be more

17

taxing on you than might otherwise be the case,

18

because Im working under the Fernando rule which

19

specifically says that you should proceed by proffer.

20

So, before any of these individuals are required

21

(a) to disclose information, (b) even respond to your

22

motion.

23

responding to your subpoenas, even with motions to

24

quash, until such time as I believe that the

25

particular materials that youre seeking from them

26

would affect my decision-making under the Fernando

27

ruling.

I dont think they should be burdened with

43
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

I can understand that, Your Honor.

In fact, Mr. Peck approached me this morning and I

began to give him a proffer of exactly why I had

called his client.

THE COURT:

So, I --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

And I can do that in writing.

All right.

Then heres -- Im going

to grant the motions to quash the existing subpoenas.

Are there other -- I dont -- I know of four

10

subpoenas now only because theres four motions to

11

quash.

12

Did other subpoenas issue?

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes, there was a subpoena for a

13

Margaret Bozek, the guardian ad litem in the

14

dissolution case.

15

He contacted me by phone and said just keep in touch

16

and keep me updated, but he was out of town and

17

couldnt be here today.

18

THE COURT:

Shes represented by Ray Hassett.

And so I released her.

Would you either, she has not filed

19

a motion or an appearance.

20

counsel, as a curtesy to Mr. Hassett, if nothing

21

else, to just alert him to whats transpired here

22

today so that he and his client are aware of where

23

were going from here.

24

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

25

THE COURT:

26

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

27

Certainly I invite

If I may, quickly, Your Honor.

Yes.
We do have a witness under

subpoena, a judicial marshal, we are not contesting

44
1

the subpoena, I just want to make that clear to the

Court.

THE COURT:

That subpoena.

So I was asking

Attorney Baird, so there was that other motion,

theres a motion to a marshal. Is that Marshal

Clemens (phonetically)

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

10

THE COURT:

Three state troopers.

Three troopers?
Three troopers.

Well, all of these -- I havent

11

ruled on anything other than the four motions to

12

quash.

13

those subpoenas so that they can return to their

14

stations, wherever they may be?

15

we have all agreed that it is not appropriate to

16

begin the evidence portion of the Fernando Hearing

17

until the two threshold matters are addressed.

18

then they can be -- I mean, the subpoenas are good

19

for 60 days I think still?

Will you release those individuals today from

20

ATTY. BAIRD:

21

THE COURT:

Because I think that

And

Yes.

So, I see that Marshal Clemens is

22

here, Im sure hes aware that the subpoena does

23

direct him to appear on such date as we agree, as

24

long its been 60 days, so we have some time.

25

Im sure hell be willing to accept the subpoena if

26

it comes at a later date.

27

will as well.

And

As I suspect the troopers

So, may they be excused though today?

45
1
2
3
4

ATTY. BAIRD:
the evidence, yes.
THE COURT:

All right.

Well, were not going

forward with the evidence --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

If were not going forward with

Were not.

-- because of, I believe, the

parties --

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- agreement that these threshold --

10

I mean, I dont want to -- I feel that these

11

threshold issues need to be addressed, youre

12

advancing one of them today for the first time and

13

that is that regardless of anything else I had no

14

authority to issue protective orders, so that has to

15

be addressed first and thats what were going to do

16

first.

17
18
19

So, the witnesses then may be excused if theyre

here under subpoena.
ATTY. MAURIELLO:

If I just, quickly, for the

20

record, Your Honor, briefly -- does Your Honors

21

ruling extend to my verbal motion to quash the

22

subpoena of family relations supervisor, Andrew

23

Spurrier, so I can clarify that for the record?

24
25

THE COURT:

Do you have any objection?

Was that

a duces tecum order --

26

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

27

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- subpoena as well?

Well, as far

46
1

as the duces tecum -- I think as far as the subpoena

itself, Im going to quash that on the oral motion

because counsel didnt know of it extending to Mr.

Spurrier so as far as --

Will counsel for the parties here, who have been

kind enough to indicate theyll remain in the case

and even file on the other case --

8
9

ATTY. PECK:
Honor.

10

THE COURT:

11

ATTY. PECK:

12

THE COURT:

13

ATTY. PECK:

14
15
16

I was going to ask that, Your

Should subpoenas go to counsel -Absolutely.

-- rather than to the individuals?
Absolutely, Your Honor.

Absolutely.
THE COURT:

Attorney Baird, that may make it

even easier in the event we get to that --

17

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

20
21
22

Yes.

Ill accept service --

-- so Mr. Mauriello --- on all Judicial Branch

employees.
THE COURT:

-- will accept service.

Mr. Peck,

Ms. Shay --

23

ATTY. SHAY:

24

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

-- and Mr. Palmer will all accept

25

service in the future.

26

ATTY. BAIRD:

27

ATTY. PECK:

Thank you.
On the promise I made to file an

47
1
2

appearance on the threatening case.

THE COURT:

All right.

Well, I do appreciate

everyones input.

the current four motions to quash being granted.

ATTY. PECK:

And they may all be excused with

May we get a copy of the proffer,

Your Honor, so that, assuming we get to that stage,

at least we have some idea of what it is?

8
9

THE COURT:

Yeah, well, it certainly -- I dont

know if that requires a written proffer.

But if I

10

get to the point where I think that evidence from any

11

of the subpoenaed parties may impact on my ultimate

12

decision, should we get to the Fernando Hearing, then

13

I am going to ask Attorney Baird to make a proffer as

14

to what it is -- what it is, generally, that she

15

would seek to offer, and as it pertains to your

16

clients, what particular information she seeks.

17

that would then be available to you.

18

I -- I will then identify anything that I hear

19

that -- if anything I hear conceivably could make a

20

difference, then I suspect that identified

21

information will appear on the subpoena.

22

ATTY. PECK:

So

I dont know if

My issue, Your Honor, is not to

23

wait until they get the subpoena to see the proffer.

24

If she files a written proffer it may be treated as a

25

pleading --

26
27

THE COURT:

If its a written proffer, then I

dont see any -- it would be part of the file.

48
1

ATTY. PECK:

Its a pleading, Your Honor, shes

duty bound to send it to counsel of record.

get the written proffer in due course.

THE COURT:

So we

Yeah, I guess Im not certain

whether it requires a written proffer.

But, I dont

think, Attorney Baird, youd object to it being a

written proffer so that counsel could be, at least,

prepared to respond rather than getting the subpoena

and seeing it for the first time.

10

But well -- I suspect Attorney Baird will try

11

to see that the process runs as smoothly as it can.

12

ATTY. PECK:

Thank you, Judge.

13

THE COURT:

14

presence here today.

Anything else?

15

ATTY. MAURIELLO:

16

ATTY. SHAY:

17

THE COURT:

I appreciate your

Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

But Im going to ask Attorney Hans

18

and Attorney Baird and Mr. Taupier to remain as we

19

now set our schedule for the days ahead.

20

All right, now lets -- do you want to file a

21

brief on issue 1?

22

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes.

And I do have some

23

clarification on the request for a Fernando Hearing

24

issue.

25
26
27

Im glad it was made.

THE COURT:

All right.

Im willing to take this

up, you know, step by step, so.

But it seems to me the first issue that needs to

49
1

be addressed -- and Attorney Hans, Im going to need

law from you, I understand that Attorney Baird is

claiming that the -- a protective order can only

issue in a so-called family violence crime, which I

suspect is alleged by the defense to be a defined

term, statutorily.

that neither of the two criminal cases pending

against the defendant falls within the definition of

a family violence crime.

10

ATTY. BAIRD:

11

THE COURT:

And it is Attorney Bairds claim

Correct.

So, that is issue -- to me thats

12

issue 1.

13

that if I had not, in the first instance, the

14

authority to issue the order then the need for a

15

Fernando Hearing is, I think, eliminated by that.

16

And we dont need to get to the question of the

17

timeliness of the request for the hearing.

18

suspect even the state would agree that if Attorney

19

Baird changed her request for a Fernando Hearing to

20

simply a motion to vacate the order as without a

21

statutory basis that it would have to be addressed.

22

So, thats what I see is the first issue.

23
24

Because I think Attorney Baird is right

And youd like an opportunity, Attorney Baird,

to brief that.

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

26

THE COURT:

27

Because I

Yes.

Now I dont know if you want a

simultaneously brief the question of timeliness, Id

50
1

invite you to do that.

If the desire is, at least

pursuant to your other motion to, sort of, move this

along then I would urge you to also address in this

brief the second question, which is, if I determine I

have the authority whether or not the failure to have

sought a Fernando Hearing on the date that the order

issued.

question if I decide the order could issue but in the

other file, then youre now saying that you want to

Now, of course that gets us into the

10

then make an immediate request on the day that I

11

shift it to the other docket number.

12

understand thats there as well.

13
14
15

ATTY. BAIRD:

So, I

What we really want is a trial.

But, and if this is holding it up in any way.

THE COURT:

Well, you know, listen, I can

16

certainly talk to the attorneys about that.

And

17

perhaps, if you have a few minutes, were about to

18

conclude on the record, I can talk to both of you in

19

chambers to see what we can do by way of a trial.

20

But, I suggest then -- or Ill direct you to

21

brief both issues.

22

order, timeliness of the request.

23

would you want to file -- actually I would say it

24

should be simultaneous briefs.

25

situation where they need to be responsive.

26
27

Authority to issue the protective

And how much time

I dont see this as a

So, why dont we agree on a date for

simultaneous briefs.

Ill then give each side,

51
1

perhaps, if they wish to, maybe an additional couple

of weeks to file a response, if they wish to, but I

think initial briefs could be simultaneous.

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Suggestions as to how long that you

want?

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

Tuesday?

The 21st, Tuesday?

Why dont we, because Im asking for

two, why dont we go to maybe the Friday of next

10

week.

11

myself, obviously.

12

briefs then Ill have the clerks office notify both

13

of you as to a date.

14

then as well, I guess?

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

19

And then once I receive the

Would you want argument on it

As long as it doesnt hold up

anything.

17
18

Because Im going to need to research this

THE COURT:

Hold it up.

All right.

Thats

All right.

Are you able to submit the briefs by

fair.

20

10-24?

21

If either side wants to respond, Ill put that date

22

as 10-21 [sic], thats one week more.

23

review the briefs, Ill see if anybody responds.

24

Ill have the clerks office contact you both on or

25

about 10-31 and we will schedule argument on this for

26

the week following.

27

All right, so 10-24 for simultaneous briefs.

ATTY. BAIRD:

Yes, Your Honor.

Once Ill

And Mr.

52
1

Taupiers counsel in the family matter has reminded

me, graciously, thank you, that this issue does

impact his ability to see his children, he has not

been able to see his children given this issuance of

the protective order.

granted then that is --

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

THE COURT:

So, if it was improperly

Fair point.
Yes.

Okay.

So, to reiterate.

10-24

10

simultaneous briefs on both issues.

11

authority of the court to issue a protective order on

12

these cases.

13

for a hearing.

14

Issue one,

Issue two, timeliness of the request

Each side will then have one week till 10-31 to

15

file any response.

16

which is the Monday, the clerks office will reach

17

out to both sides; theyll be a hearing set during

18

the week of 11-3.

19

briefs and replies if they are filed, and having

20

researched the issue myself I would, after argument,

21

hope that I would be in a position to rule then.

22

On 10-31, or at the latest, 11-3,

And I would hope, having read the

If the orders are vacated well take it from

23

there on that course.

24

so to speak, then I suspect what well do then is set

25

a date for the hearing on the Fernando A., unless we

26

come to some agreement on a trial schedule.

27

If the orders are reaffirmed,

Okay?

Can the lawyers remain in attendance and see me

53
1

in chambers?

take up?

Is there anything else that we need to

Nothing?

ATTY. HANS:

No, Your Honor.

ATTY. BAIRD:

We do have a pending motion for

modification of the financial and non-financial

conditions of bond.

well.

THE COURT:

ATTY. BAIRD:

So that motion is pending as

Which one is that?

Thats the one that was filed, I

10

think, on the 14th or 15th of October, having to do --

11

it was filed on October 10th when there was all the

12

flurry of activity --

13

THE COURT:

14

Well that, your associate, Im

forgetting Mitchells last name.

15

ATTY. BAIRD:

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. BAIRD:

18

THE COURT:

Lake.

Attorney Lake.

Yes.
Yes.

He was here and there was -- I

19

modified -- what is the relief that this seeks?

20

this just dealing with the --

21

ATTY. BAIRD:

22

the same day as the --

23
24

THE COURT:

Perhaps if that could be heard on

So this will be heard in the first

week of November as well?

25

ATTY. BAIRD:

26

THE COURT:

27

Was

and then.

Yes.

Agreed.

Ill read it between now

54
1

ATTY. BAIRD:

And I guess I also understand that

family court has or requires clarification of whether

Mr. Taupier is allowed to be in the presence of his

wife under the current protective order in place in

this court during proceedings in the family matter.

THE COURT:

I dont think that was specifically

a carve out.

But it would -- Attorney Hans, are

there scheduled -- Attorney Mathers are there

scheduled hearings?

10

ATTY. MATHERS:

We have a status on Wednesday of

11

next week here.

12

Taupier to be here, providing it doesnt violate the

13

protective order should Mrs. Taupier appear.

14

And its my intention for Mr.

We are also determining whether or not were

15

going to be going forward in the divorce trial

16

scheduled in November, there are other motions that

17

need to be addressed that will require my client,

18

obviously, to appear in court.

19

him to be found in viol --

20

THE COURT:

So I just dont want

Would it normally be the practice

21

that the parties would appear in court or would only

22

counsel for a status conference in a dissolution?

23

ATTY. MATHERS:

That sometimes depends on what

24

the desired outcome is.

I know, for a fact, theres

25

been times when a clients present because were

26

going to be entering orders after the status, after

27

we reach some sort of agreement absent a hearing.

55
1
2

Sometimes the parties arent required to be here.

I prefer him to be here because Id like to deal

with the issue, right now, of access with the

children, having that transferred as a civil order is

that it refers kids stay in Vernon.

the protective order but should this court be

inclined to vacate the protective order regarding the

children, or at least allow father access to the

children either currently at his home, because this

Understanding

10

is where hes required to stay, I would like to have

11

family court change the location for the visitation.

12

THE COURT:

Attorney Hans, whats your position

13

on allowing there to be such contact as is, sort of,

14

likely to occur while both parties are here in the

15

courthouse?

16

attend the status conference or not.

17

Attorney Mathers is concerned that if she invites her

18

client to come to the status conference and counsel

19

for Mrs. Taupier does the same that could be

20

considered a violation of the no contact order.

21

I dont know if Mrs. Taupier plans to

ATTY. HANS:

But I guess

Your Honor, just looking under

22

condition four of the terms and conditions of the

23

protective order issued in CR13-0200821T it says do

24

not contact the protected person, in any manner,

25

including by written, electronic or telephone

26

contact.

27

So, as long as he doesnt speak to her, I dont

56
1
2
3

think it -THE COURT:

Well, it would also bar him from

being ---

ATTY. MATHERS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. MATHERS:

THE COURT:

ATTY. MATHERS:

THE COURT:

10
11

100 yards away as well.

-- within 100 yards of her -So.

-- because I suspect thats page -Two, yes, Your Honor.

Is that the second page of the

protective order?
ATTY. HANS:

But, Your Honor, I mean, there are

12

certain proceedings in the civil court where I think

13

its --

14
15
16

ATTY. MATHERS:

I would agree with you.

I just

dont want there to be a problem.

ATTY. HANS:

Is it fair to say its unavoidable

17

that they are going to have to -- I mean, they have a

18

trial scheduled for November 16th?

19

ATTY. MATHERS:

20

ATTY. HANS:

21

THE COURT:

22

Okay.
Well, well be back in court before

the last week.

23

ATTY. MATHERS:

24

THE COURT:

25

The last week of November.

Right.

Im more concerned because Attorney

Mathers says theres a hearing next week.

26

ATTY. MATHERS:

27

THE COURT:

A status, Your Honor.

A status, next week.

Heres -- Im

57
1

going to allow Mr. Taupier to be in the courthouse

for his status conference.

remains otherwise in full force and effect it doesnt

authorize any additional contact.

The protective order

Attorney Hans, I suspect, youre free to contact

counsel for Mrs. -- you can contact Mr. Morano, you

can contact Mr. Pecks client who I guess is Mrs.

Taupiers lawyer and you can indicate to them that if

Mrs. Taupier doesnt want to see her husband and

10

theres no requirement from the family court judge

11

that she be here, then she may not -- that Ive given

12

Mr. Taupier permission to be here.

13

ATTY. HANS:

14

ATTY. MATHERS:

15

THE COURT:

16

ATTY. MATHERS:

17

THE COURT:

18

ATTY. MATHERS:

19

Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.

Okay.

The hearing date.

The status is on --

Or the status.
-- its Wednesday, the 22nd, I

believe, at 2.

20

THE COURT:

Wednesday the 22nd.

21

All right.

So, Mr. Taupier is permitted to be

22

here on Wednesday the 22nd.

23

ATTY. MATHERS:

24

THE COURT:

25

Anything else?

26

ATTY. HANS:

27

THE COURT:

Thank you.

For his status conference.

No, Your Honor.

Now, are any of the cases that you

58
1

have, Attorney Baird and Attorney Hans, just give me

two minutes, Ill come and see you.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

* * * * * * * * * *

NO:

MMX-CR14-0675616T

SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF MIDDLESEX

v.

AT MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

EDWARD F. TAUPIER

OCTOBER 17, 2014

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and

correct transcription of the audio recording of the abovereferenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of
Middlesex, Middletown, Connecticut, before the Honorable David P.
Gold, Judge, on the 17th day of October, 2014.

Dated this 24th day of October, 2014 in Middletown,

Connecticut.

_______________________________
Carrie Bogdan
Court Recording Monitor