Jean Jacques appeal of murder conviction in Norwich stabbing argued before Supreme Court
May 1—HARTFORD — Jean Jacques, a Norwich man sentenced two years ago to 60 years in prison for the stabbing death of 25-year-old Casey Chadwick in Norwich, took his appeal of the murder conviction to state Supreme Court justices Wednesday.
A lawyer representing Jacques argued before the Supreme Court Wednesday that Jacques should have had a second probable cause hearing and that statements from two jailhouse informants should not have been part of the case, while the assistant state's attorney, argued that the trial court made the right decision.
Jacques was convicted in 2016 for the murder of Chadwick in Norwich on June 15, 2015. In 2019, the state Supreme Court overturned that conviction over the issue of a police search, without a warrant, of the apartment Jacques had rented.
During a second trial, a jury in 2022 found him guilty and a New London Superior Court judge sentenced him to 60 years in prison.
Pamela S. Nagy, supervisory assistant public defender, who is seeking to overturn the conviction, argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a probable cause hearing is a constitutional right, and Jacques should have had a second probable cause hearing before the second trial.
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, who argued the state's case, said the trial court correctly denied Jacques' request for a second probable cause hearing.
Nagy argued that a statement from Tywan Jenkins, a jailhouse informant, should not have been admitted as part of the case since Jenkins suffered a stroke and had memory loss that made him "functionally unavailable" to be cross-examined. She said by the time of the second trial, he had no memory of the defendant or of being cellmates with him.
Jacques also claims that testimony from another jailhouse informant was unreliable and also should not have been included, according to court documents.
Sugrue, however, said that there is no reason to reverse the conviction. He said "this is a case, even without Mr. Jenkins' statement, of overwhelming evidence."
He said information from the informants is independently corroborated, and that is key.
When speaking generally in response to justices' questions, Sugrue said that if a person's answers during cross examination are that they don't know or they can't remember, then that is valuable information for the jury to have.
When Justice Steven D. Ecker asked if the court could potentially send the issue regarding Jenkins' memory to a hearing, Sugrue said he doesn't know about the practicalities, and asked in that scenario, if the state would get a chance to have the person examined by its own expert.
Nagy said during her rebuttal that Jenkins was functionally unavailable because he's had significant brain damage. She took issue with the statement that the information from Jenkins was corroborated.
Supreme Court justices asked questions on Wednesday, but did not make a decision.
