This week the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Larise King and found that the trial court did not properly advise her that by waiving her right to a jury trial, she gave up the requirement that she could only be convicted by a unanimous verdict.
The defendant had been arrested in September, 2019 and charged with accessory to murder and conspiracy to commit murder. She remained in custody awaiting trial when the pandemic hit in early 2020. Sometime in early 2020 the state suspended jury trials indefinitely, and Ms. King, unable to make bond, was held in custody, pending a jury trial. In February, 2021 Ms. King appeared via video and, with the assistance of counsel, waived her right to a jury trial, and instead elected to be tried by a three-judge panel. This waiver was no doubt entered because at the time there was no indication by the state that jury trials would resume anytime soon, and that she would continue to remain incarcerated, but the court had resumed courtside trials.
The trial court questioned Ms. King about her waiver of the right to a jury trial and advised her that her trial would be held before a three-judge panel. The court, however, failed to advise her that she did not have the right to a unanimous verdict before a three-judge panel. The statutes permitting a trial before a three-judge panel only require two judges to convict or acquit. This is contrary to the requirement in Connecticut and throughout the nation that a jury verdict must be unanimous.
After trial two of three judges voted to convict Ms. King of accessory to murder and conspiracy to commit murder. One judge voted to convict on lesser included offenses. The majority vote to convict was sufficient under the Connecticut statutes to enter judgments of guilty. The defendant appealed directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court and argued that the trial court did not adequately advise her that she could be convicted by a non-unanimous verdict in a courtside trial. The Supreme Court agreed with her and reversed her conviction.
The Supreme Court in this case clearly felt that the accused was entitled to be fully advised of her rights under the state and federal constitutions and that any deviation from that was reversable error. Simply, you cannot give up a basic constitutional right without being fully advised of its consequences.
Ms. King was deprived of that right when she elected a trial before a three-judge panel and suffered the result. The state only convinced two of three judges of her guilt rather than twelve of twelve jurors. A much lower standard.
No responses yet