After a year of pandemic planning, innovating and a false start, Connecticut’s federal courts try to attack a trial backlog

More than a year after the coronavirus pandemic slowed movement in Connecticut courts to a crawl, the state’s federal District Court on Tuesday began trying to seat a jury for a criminal trial in a giant step toward a return to judicial normalcy.

But it won’t be normal right away.

Two Bridgeport courtrooms were in use Tuesday to space out participants while selecting a jury to try an alleged gangster accused of attempting to arrange the murder of a witness against him. Trials over coming weeks, depending on numbers of participants, could require three courtrooms. And federal judges have collaborated for months with virologists, air circulation experts, information technology consultants and others to configure safe courtrooms.

In spite of the hi-tech logistics, there is no guarantee that prospective jurors - after suffering through months of warnings against congregating indoors - will respond to summonses in sufficient numbers to to empanel a jury. An earlier attempt to schedule a federal trial failed in November because jurors were reluctant to gather in court during a late-year spike in infections.

There is some new optimism because the effort to resume normal operations is taking place against some of the best virology data of the pandemic. At last half of Connecticut adults have been inoculated with a COVID-19 vaccine, and hospitalizations and the infection rate are at the lowest levels in months.

“We are scheduling as many jury trials as we can accommodate,” Chief U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill said Tuesday. “We are using double courtrooms, which means we are shutting down another judge, and to that extent we are constrained. But we are getting back to work. I’m relatively optimistic that the day is not that far away when we can get back to one courtroom with a jury in the jury box.”

The much larger and relatively under-funded state court system has spent more than $2.8 million on technology upgrades over the last year and continues to work on a plan to resume trials by jury, although nothing appears imminent.

“The lifting of certain pandemic-related public health restrictions, the broad availability of COVID vaccinations and the retrofitting of judicial branch facilities to provide the highest level of health and safety protection for prospective jurors and other stakeholders all contribute to the likelihood that jury trials will resume in the state courts within the coming weeks,” a state judicial branch spokeswoman said Tuesday. “Further consultation with public health officials on this matter are expected to take place this week.”

The inability to schedule jury trials has been a nagging concern for court administrators since the corona virus pandemic caused a national judicial crisis, closing state and federal court systems across the country 14 months ago

A speedy trial is a fundamental right for criminal defendants, in particular those incarcerated while waiting for a trial. So far, Connecticut judges have said that right is secondary to public health and safety. That could change if delays drag on. There is also a more practical reason to resume trials, from the state’s perspective. The prospect of trial on a date certain can be an inducement for a criminal defendant to agree to a plea bargain, saving the the time and expense of a trial.

There are also thousands of civil trials in the state each year, which turn on an array issues running from civil rights violations to trade secrets, with judgements in the millions of dollars.

In Bridgeport on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley was presiding over the first of three days set aside for jury selection in the government’s case against 22-year old Vaughn “Fettiboy LV” Thomas who, while serving a state prison sentence at age 20, was indicted for obstructing justice by trying to arrange the murder of a federal grand jury witness against him

The U.S. Attorney’s office has said Thomas “solicited other inmates to murder a federal grand jury witness. He also wrote letters to non-incarcerated individuals instructing them to murder the witness, and made phone calls to make sure his instructions were followed.”

Federal jury selection usually takes a day. Dooley scheduled it over three days to avoid having large numbers of prospective jurors appear in the courthouse simultaneously. Instead, she summoned 40 on Tuesday, 40 more on Wednesday, another 40 on Thursday morning and a final 40 on Thursday afternoon.

Of the 40 jurors called for Tuesday, only 12 appeared and one of those was excused. By Thursday, the court hopes to have enough prospective jurors on which the defense and prosecution can agree to seat a jury of 12 with alternates.

Next week, U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant will try, for a second time, to seat a jury to try Amber Foley, who lives in a half-way house in New Haven and has been waiting for three years to be tried on a charges involving the production and distribution of sexually explicit photographs of children. Bryant tried to empanel a jury last fall, but gave up in November. Prospective jurors ignored summonses and a final blow was struck against a trial when the Hartford courthouse was closed after a security officer tested positive for COVID-19.

Foley’s lawyer, Todd Allen Bussert, has been arguing for at least a year that the charges against Foley should be dismissed because her speedy trial rights have been violated by the pandemic delay. Bryant has so far rebuffed him.

Underhill recorded a public service announcement to reassure prospective jurors, reminding them of the civic duty to serve as jurors and pointing to steps taken to keep jurors safe.

“The fact that you are watching this video suggests that corona virus statistics here in Connecticut and the advice of our local public health officials indicate that it is safe to resume limited operations in our courthouses provided certain protective measures are in place,” Underhill says in the recording.

He said the plan to move ahead with trials was made in consultation with advice from state and federal public health experts and , if the advice changes, “we will not hesitate to pull back.”