Juries and Justice

A Quinnipiac University School of Law Forum 
Co-Sponsored by the Connecticut Bar Foundation
and the Quinnipiac Law School Criminal Law Society 

Friday, January 28, 2011 
2:30PM-5:30PM (with reception to follow) 
Quinnipiac University School of Law – Grand Courtroom

Click HERE for Program Flyer (printable)
Click HERE for RSVP form (
Quinnipiac law students should RSVP directly to nicole.fernandes@quinnipiac.edu).
Click HERE for Biographies of Panelists.
Click HERE for Background Readings

PROGRAM

Welcome Remarks 
  • Brad Saxton, Dean, Quinnipiac University School of Law 
  • Timothy S. Fisher, President, Connecticut Bar Foundation
  • Jeffrey A. Meyer, Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law

Panel #1:
Individualized Jury Voir Dire: Do We Question Too Much? 

Connecticut stands alone among its sister states to the extent that it requires and allows for individualized voir dire of prospective members of civil and criminal trial juries.  Advocates defend the Connecticut approach on the ground that it ensures selection of fair and impartial jurors. Critics contend that it wastes resources and discourages parties from resorting to jury trials.    

    Moderator
  • Michael P. Lawlor, Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management
     Panelists
  • Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut
  • Linda K. Lager, Chief Administrative Judge (Civil), Connecticut Superior Court 
  • Norman Pattis, The Pattis Law Firm 
  • Carl J. Schuman, Judge, Connecticut Superior Court
  • Richard A. Silver, Silver, Golub & Teitell LLP

Panel #2:
Juries and Sentencing: Should Juries Have More Say?

Connecticut criminal trial juries are generally confined to deciding what facts the prosecution has proved to establish a defendant’s guilt of a crime. Outside the death penalty context, jurors don’t get to decide or recommend what the sentence should be or even to learn what sentencing consequences a defendant might face (such as a mandatory minimum prison term). Advocates maintain that juries should just decide “the facts,” and judges are better suited to decide what sentence a defendant should receive. Critics contend that juries are emasculated from evaluating and assessing a defendant’s true culpability.

    Moderator
  • Sarah French Russell, Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law 
     Panelists
  • Leonard C. Boyle, Deputy Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut
  • Robert J. Devlin, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge (Criminal), Connecticut Superior Court 
  • Timothy C. Moynahan, Moynahan & Minella 
  • Shelley R. Sadin, Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, PC 
Closing Comments 
  • Linda Ross Meyer, Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law 
Reception/Refreshments 

"Juries and Justice" is open to the public and free of charge. 
Inquiries? Please contact jeffrey.meyer@quinnipiac.edu / 203.582.3202/ or nicole.fernandes@quinnipiac.edu