Dominic Badaracco Trial

7/28/2019 Dominic Badaracco Trial

1/28

1NO.CR12-0263152-S : SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD

v. : AT BRIDGEPORT

DOMINIC BADARACCO : JUNE 28, 2013

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Members of the jury, you have heard the evidence presented in

this case. It now becomes my duty to instruct you as to the law which

is to be applied to the facts in this case.

READING PREPARED MATERIAL

During these instructions, I will, for the most part, be reading

from prepared material. I do this so that I do not inadvertently give you

an incorrect instruction. So if I lose eye contact with you from time to

time, please bear with me.

FUNCTION OF COURT AND JURY

1


2/28

It is exclusively the function of the court to state the rules of law

which govern the case, with instructions as to how you are to apply

them. It is your obligation to accept the law as I state it. You must

follow all of my instructions and not single out some and ignore others;

they are all equally important.

You are the sole judges of the facts. It is your duty to find the

facts. You are to recollect and weigh the evidence and form your own

conclusions as to what the ultimate facts are. You may not go outside

the evidence to find the facts. This means that you may not resort to

guesswork, conjecture or suspicion, and you must not be influenced by

any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy.

The actions of the court during the trial in ruling on motions or

objections by counsel, or in comments to counsel or in questions to

witnesses, or in setting forth the law in these instructions are not to be

taken by you as any indication of the court's opinion as to how you

should determine the issues of fact. If the court has expressed or

intimated any opinion as to the facts, you are not bound by that

2


3/28

opinion. What the verdict shall be is your sole and exclusive duty and

responsibility.

If I refer to any of the evidence in this charge, and I may do so, it

will be simply for the purposes of illustration and clarification, and you

are not to understand that I intend to emphasize any evidence I

mention or to limit your consideration to that evidence alone. If I omit

reference to any evidence, you will supply it from your recollection. If I

incorrectly state any of the evidence, you will correct my error,

because it is your province to review the evidence and determine the

facts established by it.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

In this case, as in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is

presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt.

That means that at the moment when he was presented before

you for trial, he stood before you free of any bias, prejudice or burden

arising from his position as the accused; that nothing you might know

3


4/28

or guess about his past should be considered by you at all. Insofar as

you are concerned, he was then innocent and he remains innocent,

until such time as the evidence and matters produced here in the

course of this trial satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is

guilty.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden to prove the defendant guilty of the crime with which

he is charged is upon the state. The defendant does not have to prove

his innocence. This means that the state must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt each and every element necessary to constitute the

crime charged. Whether the burden of proof resting upon the state is

sustained, depends not on the number of witnesses, nor on the

quantity of the testimony, but on the nature and quality of the

testimony.

Please bear in mind that one witness' testimony, however, is

sufficient to convict if you believe it beyond a reasonable doubt and if

it establishes either standing alone or together with any other

testimony, all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

4


5/28

REASONABLE DOUBT

The state can sustain the burden resting on it only if the evidence

before you establishes the existence of every element of the crimes

charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

What does that mean: Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Now the phrase "reasonable doubt" has no technical or unusual

meaning. You can arrive at the real meaning of it by emphasizing the

word "reasonable." A reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon

reason and common sense. It is a doubt which is something more than

a guess or surmise. It is not a conjecture or a fanciful doubt, or a

doubt raised by one who questions simply for the sake of argument. It

is not hesitation springing from feelings of sympathy or pity for the

accused or members of his family or other persons who might in any

way be affected by your verdict. A reasonable doubt, in other words, is

a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt which has its foundation in the

evidence or lack of evidence. It is one for which you can, in your own

mind, conscientiously give a reason.

5


6/28

Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt upon which reasonable

persons like yourselves, in the more serious and important affairs in

your own lives, would hesitate to act.

Now, of course, absolute certainty in the affairs of life is almost

never attainable, and the law does not require absolute certainty on

the part of the jury before you return a verdict of guilty. The state

does not have to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or

absolute certainty.

What the law does require, however, is that after hearing all the

evidence, if there something in that evidence or lack of evidence which

leaves in the minds of the jury, as reasonable men and women, a

reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the accused

must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof which precludes every

reasonable hypothesis except guilt, is consistent with guilt and is

inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. You must, however,

distinguish between a reasonable hypothesis and a possible

hypothesis. A mere possible hypothesis of innocence will not suffice.

6


7/28

However, if you can, in reason, reconcile all of the facts proved with

any reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the accused,

then you cannot find him guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the

proven facts do establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable

doubt, then the proper verdict would be guilty.

EVIDENCE

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are

consists of:

(1) the sworn testimony of witnesses, both on direct

and cross- examination, regardless of who called the witness;

(2) the exhibits that have been received into evidence;

and

(3) any stipulations, that is, facts to which the lawyers

have agreed.

In reaching your verdict, you should consider all the testimony

and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence

and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. These

include:

7


8/28

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers. The

lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their closing

arguments and at other times is intended to help you interpret the

evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them

differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of

them controls.

(2) Questions and objections by lawyers. Attorneys

have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is

improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by

the objection or the court's ruling on it. In addition, where I have

sustained an objection to a question, you should not speculate as to

what the answer might have been.

(3) Testimony that has been limited, excluded or

stricken. Some testimony and exhibits may have been stricken or

received for limited purposes; where I have given a limiting instruction,

you must follow it.

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the

court was not in session. You are to decide the case solely on the

evidence received at trial.

(5) The document called the information that you will

have with you at the time of deliberation. It is merely the formal

8


9/28

manner of accusing a person of a crime in order to bring him to trial.

You must not consider the information as any evidence of the guilt of

the defendant, or draw any inference of guilt because he has been

charged with a crime.

STIPULATIONS

In this case a stipulation between the parties was introduced to

authenticate and permit the admission into evidence of (1) telephone

records and (2) bank records from Webster Bank. A stipulation is an

agreement between the parties concerning some fact, which you as

the jury are bound to accept as fact during your deliberations. A

stipulation by itself does not, however, establish proof of the element

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. .

The stipulations do not include the credibility or the weight you

may give to the exhibits. As with all admitted evidence, the weight of

such evidence is for you to decide.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DIRECT EVIDENCE

9


10/28

There are, generally speaking, two types of evidence: direct

evidence and circumstantial evidence. I am now going to discuss the

difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence of an event is the testimony by an eye witness

about what the witness personally saw or heard or did.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence involving inferences

reasonably drawn from proven facts.

I am going to give you a simple example of the difference

between direct and circumstantial evidence. Assume that it is a

December night, around 11:30 p.m., and you are preparing to go to

bed. You look out the window and see that it is snowing. You wake up

the next morning and come into court and testify that at approximately

11:30 p.m. the night before it was snowing in the area of your house.

This is direct evidence of the fact that it snowed at 11:30 the night

before. You saw it snow and you came in and testified to that fact.

Now assume that it is another December night, the weather is

clear and there is no snow on the ground. You go to bed and when you

10


11/28

wake up the next morning you look out the window and see snow on

the ground and footprints across your front lawn. You come into court

that morning and testify to those facts. The evidence that the night

before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there

was snow on the ground and footprints in the snow across your front

lawn is direct evidence, your eye witness observation, of those facts.

That direct evidence is itself circumstantial evidence of the fact that

sometime during the night while you were sleeping it snowed, and that

sometime thereafter someone walked across your front lawn.

In deciding this case, you may consider both direct and

circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to

both.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against circumstantial

evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make

decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday

affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions on circumstantial

evidence should not be made in the courtroom. In fact, proof by

circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the

testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation.

11


12/28

In passing upon the guilt of an accused person on the basis of

circumstantial evidence, you must be satisfied, first, that certain facts

or circumstances exist; and second, that those facts or circumstances

do beyond a reasonable doubt, lead you to conclude that the crime

was committed by the accused.

Unless the existence of those facts or circumstances leads you,

as reasonable men and women, to only one conclusion, namely, that

the accused is guilty, then, of course, you would not be justified in

finding him guilty.

INFERENCES

You may draw reasonable inferences from the established facts in

this case. The inferences which you draw, however, must not be from

a guess upon the evidence, but they must be from a fact or facts which

the evidence has established. In drawing inferences from established

facts, you should use your reason and common sense. The inferences

which you draw must be logical and reasonable, and any facts,

whether inferred or proven directly, which are essential to proof of an

12


13/28

element of the crimes charged must be proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.

CREDIBILITY

I now want to discuss the subject of credibility by which I mean

believability of testimony. You have observed the witnesses. The

credibility, the believability, of the witnesses and the weight to be

given to their testimony are matters entirely within your hands. It is

for you alone to determine their credibility. Whether or not you find a

fact proven is not to be determined by the number of witnesses

testifying for or against it. It is the quality, not the quantity, of

testimony which should be controlling. Nor is it necessarily so that

because a witness testifies to a fact and no one contradicts it you are

bound to accept that fact as true. The credibility of the witness and

the truth of the fact is for you to determine.

You may believe all, some or none of any witnesss testimony. In

making that determination, you may consider the following factors: (1)

was the witness able to see, hear or know the things about which the

witness testified; (2) how well was the witness able to recall and

13


14/28

describe those things; (3) what was the witnesss manner while

testifying; (4) did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the

case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or matter involved

in the case; (5) how reasonable was the witnesss testimony

considered in light of all the evidence in the case; and (6) was the

witnesss testimony contradicted by what the witness has said or did at

another time or by testimony of other witnesses or by other evidence

that you do believe.

ACCEPTING TRUTH OF TESTIMONY

With each witness, you should consider his or her ability to

observe facts correctly, recall them, and relate them to you truly and

accurately. You should, in short, size up the witnesses and make your

own judgment as to their credibility and decide what portion -- all,

some or none -- of any particular witness' you will believe based on

these principles. You should harmonize the evidence as far as it can

reasonably be done. You should use all your experience, your

knowledge of human nature and of the motives that influence and

control human conduct, and you test the evidence against that

knowledge.

14


15/28

In short, you should bring to bear upon the testimony of the

witnesses the same considerations and use the same sound judgment

you apply to questions of truth and veracity as they present

themselves to you in everyday life.

You are entitled to accept any testimony which you believe to be

true, and to reject, either wholly or in part, the testimony of any

witness you believe has testified untruthfully or erroneously. The

credit that you will give to the testimony offered is, as I have told you,

something which you alone must determine. Where a witness testifies

inaccurately, you should keep that in mind and scrutinize the whole

testimony of that witness. The significance you attach to it may vary

more or less with the particular fact as to which the inaccuracy existed

or with the surrounding circumstances. You should bear in mind that

people sometimes forget things. On the other hand, if a witness has

intentionally testified falsely, you should carefully consider whether

you should rely on any of the witnesss testimony. You may reject the

testimony, but you are not required to do so. It is up to you to accept

or reject all or any part of any witness' testimony. If you find that a

witness has been inaccurate in one respect, remember it in judging the

15


16/28

rest of his testimony. Give to it that weight which your own mind leads

you to think it ought to have, and which you would attach to it in the

ordinary affairs of life, where someone came to you in a matter and

you found that in some particular he was inaccurate.

INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS

Evidence has been presented that a witness, Robert Brunetti,

made statements outside of court that are inconsistent with his trial

testimony. You should consider this evidence only as it relates to the

credibility of the witnesss testimony, not as substantive evidence. In

other words, consider such evidence as you would any other evidence

of inconsistent conduct in determining the weight to be given to the

testimony of the witness in court.

IMPEACHMENT WHELAN RULE

In evidence as states exhibit 14, is a prior statement of Ronald

Richter in the form of a recorded telephone call with Robert Brunetti.

To the extent, if at all, you find such statement inconsistent with the

Ronald Richters trial testimony; you may give such inconsistency the

16


17/28

weight to which you feel it is entitled in determining the witness's

credibility here in court. You may also use such statement for the truth

of its content and find facts from it.

TESTIMONY OF POLICE / COURT OFFICIALS

As you will remember, there was testimony here from an

inspector with the Division of Criminal Justice and a judge. The

testimony of an inspector or judge is entitled to no special or exclusive

sanctity merely because it comes from a person with that position.

Like a police officer, an inspector or judge who takes the witness stand

subjects his testimony to the same tests that any other witness does.

You should not automatically believe or disbelieve them merely

because of their positions. You should weigh and balance their

testimony just as carefully as you would weigh the testimony of any

other witness.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

I am going to talk for a moment about opinion evidence, expert

testimony.

17


18/28

In this case, two witnesses took the stand and stated to you not

merely what they knew as facts, but they gave opinions as experts.

These were:

Dr. Bloch ENT physician

Richard Seman -- Appraiser

No matter what may be the expertise of a particular witness who

states to you an opinion upon a fact in a case that opinion is subject to

review by you. It is in no way binding upon you. It is for you to

consider along with the other circumstances in the case, and using

your best judgment, to determine whether or not you will give any

weight to it, and if so, what weight you will give to it.

In weighing and considering the testimony of an expert you

should apply to him/her the same considerations of credibility that you

apply to any other witness. In deciding the weight to be accorded to

the testimony of an expert witness, you should also consider his/her

education, experience, ability in the particular field of knowledge and

any other material facts of the sort developed in the course of the

testimony. You should consider the proof, or lack of proof, and the

18


19/28

completeness, or lack of completeness, of any facts considered by the

expert in forming his/her opinion or reaching his/her conclusion. You

should recall the testimony of the expert witness in the case in the

light of the principles that I have just stated to you.

DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING

As you know, the defendant, Dominic Badaracco, did not testify in

this case. In a criminal trial, the individual charged with the crime is

under no duty to testify on his own behalf. You may draw no

unfavorable inference from the defendant's decision not to testify.

The law does not compel a defendant to take the witness stand

and testify and no presumption of guilt may be raised from the fact

that a defendant decides not to testify. You must not permit such fact

to weigh in the slightest degree against the defendant, nor should it

enter into your discussions or deliberations.

A defendant is not required to establish his innocence, because

as I told you earlier, he is presumed innocent. He does not have to

produce any evidence whatsoever if he does not choose to do so and

you can not hold it against him in any way.

19


20/28

As I have already told you, the burden is on the state to prove the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails, a

defendant has the right to rely on that failure and, of right must be

found not guilty.

COUNT ONE

BRIBERY

( 53a-147)

[Read bribery count]

The defendant is charged in count one with bribery. As relevant

here, the statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as

follows:

a person is guilty of bribery if he offers a public servant any

benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion or

recommendation as a public servant.

The essence of the crime of bribery is the voluntary giving, or

offering to give, something of monetary value to a public servant to

influence the performance of official duty.

20


21/28

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must

prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Benefit

The first element is that the defendant offered a benefit.

"Benefit" means a monetary advantage, or anything regarded by the

beneficiary as a monetary advantage, including benefit to any person

or entity in whose welfare the beneficiary is interested. In this case,

the state alleges the benefit to be money.

Element 2 - To public servant

The second element is that at the time that the benefit was

offered, the person who was to receive that benefit was a public

servant. A "public servant" is an officer or employee of government or

a quasi-public agency, elected or appointed, and any person

participating as adviser, consultant or otherwise, paid or unpaid, in

performing a governmental function. In this case, the state alleges the

public servant to be Superior Court Judge Robert Brunetti.

Element 3 - For consideration

21


22/28

The third element is that the offered benefit was consideration for

the recipient's decision, opinion or recommendation as a public

servant. The state need not, however, show that the public servant

could actually have rendered the decision, opinion or recommendation

requested. Similarly, the state need not show that the public servant

officially took any action in response to the offer of a benefit.

In this case, the state alleges that the benefit was offered for

Judge Brunettis help in connection with a grand jury investigation.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that 1) the defendant offered a benefit, 2) to a public servant, and 3) in

consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion or recommendation

as a public servant.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of bribery, then

you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you

unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the

defendant not guilty.

22


23/28

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Shortly, you will retire for your deliberations. You should not

begin to deliberate until you have received the Information and

exhibits and you should only deliberate in the jury room when all of the

jurors are present.

When you do retire and deliberate, please be mindful of the

following points.

IRRELEVANCE OF PUNISHMENT

You should not be concerned in any way with the punishment to

be imposed in this case in the event of a conviction. That is a matter

exclusively within the province of the court under the limitations and

restrictions imposed by statute. You are to find the fact of guilt or

innocence of the accused uninfluenced by the probable punishment or

consequences which follow conviction.

23


24/28

Nor should you, the jury, be influenced by any sympathy for the

accused, or any other person who might be affected by your decision.

DUTIES UPON RETIRING

In conclusion, I impress upon you that you are duty bound as

jurors to apply the law as I outlined it; to determine the facts on the

basis of the evidence as it has been presented; and then to render a

verdict fairly, uprightly and without any prejudice. When you reach a

verdict, it must be unanimous. That is, for each count all six of you

must agree on the verdict.

Each of you takes into the deliberation room your individual

experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and

wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of

others. Despite that, in the last analysis, it is your individual duty to

make up your own mind, and to decide this case upon the basis of your

own individual judgment and conscience.

The defendant justly relies upon you to carefully consider his

claims, to carefully consider all of the evidence and to find him not

24


25/28


26/28

Likewise, if you wish to make a request to hear any of the

testimony again, as you have a right to, put that request in writing.

Please try to be as specific as possible.

When you have reached a verdict, inform the marshal simply that

you have reached a verdict, but do not tell him what your verdict is or

put it in writing. You will be asked to return to the courtroom to

announce your verdict. Your foreperson will announce your verdict

orally and the rest of the panel will be asked whether that is your

verdict.

With that, the six regular members of the jury may retire to the

jury room. The two alternates should remain here.

EXCUSE ALTERNATES

Thank you for your attendance. You have served an extremely

important function. Do not discuss the substance of the case or

speculate on the deliberations until you know that a verdict has been

26


27/28

returned. While it is unusual, alternate jurors are sometimes called

upon to take the place of a juror during deliberations.

EXHIBITS

Counsel should review all exhibits with the clerk and then

stipulate that all exhibits are in order so that they may be brought into

jury room.

27


28/28

28

Dominic Badaracco Trial

Documents

Transcript of Dominic Badaracco Trial