#RUSSELL PEELER SERIAL#
#RUSSELL PEELER TRIAL#

A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine '`if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'' Aldrich v. A court must grant summary judgment '`if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.'' Miner v. In a summary judgment motion, the burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED as to the federal claims. The defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on each of the plaintiff's claims, and they also argue that the defendant Thomas Sweeney is entitled to qualified immunity on the claims arising under federal law. This opinion considers the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. She also asserts the state law causes of action of negligence, gross negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation. from the Peeler brothers, utilizing flawed witness protection practices, and instituting a policy of encouraging minorities to cooperate with the police, the defendants violated Karen and B.J.'s federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

Pearline Clarke alleges that by failing to adequately protect Karen and B.J. The defendants are the City of Bridgeport and its former police chief, Thomas J. The plaintiff, Pearline Clarke, is B.J.'s grandmother and Karen's mother, and brought this action individually and as the administratrix of Karen and B.J.'s estates.

#RUSSELL PEELER TRIAL#

and Karen Clarke to prevent them from testifying against his brother, Russell Peeler, who was awaiting trial for the murder of Karen Clarke's boyfriend in the Connecticut Superior Court. Adrian Peeler killed Leroy 'B.J.' Brown, Jr. This case arises out of the shocking murders of a young boy and his mother by a Bridgeport drug dealer named Adrian Peeler in January of 1999. RULING ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Laske, III, Fairfield, CT, Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Office of the City Attorney, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendants. Moniz, Moniz, Cooper & McCann, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.Īrthur C. SWEENEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Bridgeport and the City of Bridgeport, Defendants.

#RUSSELL PEELER SERIAL#

Connecticut’s last execution was of serial killer Michael Ross in 2005, but only after Ross dropped all his appeals.Pearline CLARKE, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estates of Leroy 'B.J.' Brown, Jr. The state’s death penalty was criticized by both critics and advocates alike, because state law allowed multiple appeals that virtually assured that no one would be executed for decades. Sheila Denion, project director for the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, said the decision “takes the prudent step of ending the state’s failed death penalty and the possibility of any future executions.” Opponents of the death penalty immediately praised Thursday’s ruling. The 2012 ban had been passed prospectively because many lawmakers refused to vote for a bill that would spare the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, who were convicted of killing a mother and her two daughters in a highly publicized 2007 home invasion in Cheshire.Ĭhief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane said prosecutors will now move to get the death row inmates resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.

The majority in last year’s landmark ruling essentially said it wouldn’t be fair to execute the remaining death row inmates when lawmakers had determined the death penalty was no longer needed for future killers. Malloy and the Democrat-controlled legislature that abolished the death penalty, but only for future murders - leaving 11 men including Peeler and Santiago still facing execution. Last year’s ruling revealed a deep rift in the court, with justices writing concurring and dissenting opinions that included highly unusual criticism of each other.Īt issue in both appeals was a 2012 law passed by Democratic Gov. The majority declared capital punishment no longer comported with the state constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and was out of step with contemporary standards of decency. Justices reconsidered a 4-3 ruling they made in August in the appeal of another death row inmate, Eduardo Santiago.

Russell peeler