Menwrongfullyconvicted in New Milford murder want $60M set aside for lawsuit now on appeal, filing shows
Aug. 2—Lee's attorneys with the state Office of Attorney General William Tong appealed the ruling, prompting lawyers representing the two men to file a motion Tuesday seeking a prejudgment remedy of $60 million to ensure their clients are paid if a jury votes in their favor. If a judge agrees to the prejudgment remedy, attorneys for Birch and Henning can attach the homes of the defendants, including Lee's, any jewelry, bank accounts, retirement accounts, vehicles and any asset worth more $1,000, according to the document.
Henning and Birch are also seeking to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Victor Bolden in their lawsuit is not a final order that can be appealed. "Defendant Lee has identified no basis for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over the district court's grant of partial summary judgement to (the) plaintiffs and none exists," the attorneys for Henning and Birch said in the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Henning and Birch were 17 and 18 years old, respectively, when they were arrested for the murder of Carr, 65, who was stabbed 27 times in his daughter's New Milford home in December 1985. Birch and Henning had separate trials and, in each, Lee testified that a towel with a reddish smear tested positive for blood. While none of the victim's blood was found on either Birch or Henning, the prosecutor argued the men cleaned up after the murder based on Lee's testimony.
Three decades later, the state Supreme Court exonerated the men after an appeal of their convictions proved that Lee had never tested the towel and that the stains weren't blood. After the murder charges were dismissed in 2020, Henning and Birch filed lawsuits against the town of New Milford, Connecticut State Police detectives and sergeants, officers with the New Milford Police Department and Lee, accusing them of fabricating evidence, malicious prosecution and suppression of material exculpatory evidence.
Bolden's ruling made Lee liable for fabricating evidence and said the rest of the claims can go to trial. The jury will decide damages on the claim Lee fabricated evidence but will not have to determine if he actually did fabricate evidence since that has been decided.
Lee, a renowned forensic scientist and a professor emeritus at the University of New Haven, denied that he had fabricated evidence in a letter sent to the media after Bolden's ruling.
"I am a forensic scientist and I only present my scientific findings in the court of law," Lee wrote. "It is not my role to determine what evidence to introduce and what questions to ask a witness during the trial. I was not responsible for the documentation, collection of evidence and for photographing the scene."
He also said that Birch and Henning did not become suspects for weeks and that his findings at the crime scene were completed "well before they became suspects."
New Milford police did not respond to questions this week about whether they were still investigating who killed Carr.
—
CT AG calls for benefits for Black WWII vets, families
—
Are CT residents happy where they live? A town-by-town breakdown
