Behind-the-scenes look at Supreme Court process
Oct. 21—WILLIMANTIC — Speaking to faculty and students at Eastern Connecticut State University on Thursday, attorneys spoke about the lengthy preparations they undergo for cases.
The conversation was part of the "On Circuit" program, a court program that provides a behind-the-sceneslook at the Connecticut Supreme Court process.
"In this case, it was daunting because it's noted there were thousands of pages of documents," Attorney Floyd Dugas, who is representing Madison Police Chief John Drumm, told students and staff.
Thursday was the second time the "On Circuit" Program visited Eastern, with the first visit being in 2003. The program was suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic.
" We are so proud to resume the " On Circuit" program with a visit to Eastern's beautiful campus," Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson said in a statement. "This is the second time we've heard arguments at Eastern and it is always a pleasure to be there to educate students about the appellate process."
The court's "On Circuit" program began in 1986.
Eastern President Elsa Nunez said in a statement that Eastern was "extremely proud" to host the program.
"Our students and community will gain powerful knowledge of the inner workings of our justice system by watching the justices deliberate the two cases on their docket that day," she said. "At Eastern, employability is a major focus and having our students watch the justices engaged in debate may persuade these young people to one day pursue a law career. The case Dugas is involved in is "John Drumm, Chief of Police, et. al. v. Freedom of Information Commission," a New Britain Judicial District case.
That case involves Anike Niemeyer, who requested records from the Madison Police Department about the investigation into Barbara Hamburg, who was murdered in March 2010.
At issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in determining that requested police records were not exempt from disclosure under state law and whether the trial court erred in concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported the Freedom of Information Commission's discoveries.
Niemeyer, who is the appellee, is claiming that while police claimed they were giving her all of the records, she was only given a portion of them.
She requested the documents as research for a documentary she was working on with Hamburg's son, Madison Hamburg. To be exempt from disclosing public records, the police department needs to prove that a criminal action was reasonably anticipated, which, they argue, they did. They also need to prove that the disclosure of records would be "prejudicial" to a criminal investigation. Dugas argued that that there had been significant headway made on the investigation, warranting the police to withhold documents from Niemeyer.
"The point is that they have identified the suspect and there was testimony," he said.
Dugas said one of the officers, Det. Christopher Sudock, made it " clear" to the victim's son that he wasn't going to tell him everything about the case.
Stephanie Rice, a thirdyear law student at Yale University who is representing Niemeyer, said the Madison police don't need to prove that they are definitely going to do something but rather, need to prove that they are "work-
SUPREME, Page 4
