Law Office Of Averum J. Sprecher - Legal Expert | Middletown, CT facebook logo-blue twitter logo-blue 1

Illustrative Cases

Some Illustrative Results in Civil/Criminal Cases

 

• Not Guilty Jury Verdicts in double homicide capital felony (death penalty) prosecution

• Not Guilty Jury Verdicts on charges of intentional murder

• Not Guilty Jury Verdicts in rape/sexual assaull prosecutions

• Not Guilty Jury Verdicts in risk of injury to minor prosecutions

• Not Guilty Jury Verdi ct on charge of pI degree robbery with firearm

• Not Guilty Jury Verdict in cruelty to persons prosecution

• Dismissal of Intentional murder charge (finding of no probable cause) after evidentiary hearing

• Not Guilty Verdicts by reason of mental disease or defect in Court trials charging kidnaping, unlawful restraint, and attempted sexual assault

• Dismissal after State rested in a jury trial in the prosecution of multiple Weslyan University students on criminal charges stemming from picketing national defense plant that produced delayed action artillery shells

• In contested Superior Court hearing, obtained the unconditional release of an Acquittee (Defendant found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect) who was the youngest person ever committed to the Whiting Forensic Division and to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board; this Acquittee was only the second person in the first (13) year history of the Board to obtain a full

unconditional release

• Filed John Doe lawsuit for the Estate of the deceased victim in the notorious Showalter hit and run case in New London, Connecticut. The suit was a factor in obtaining a grand jury in vestigation and identi fy ing the person responsible for the fatal accident. This incident was publicized in an appearance on the Today Show in New York City; an article in People Magazine; and a request to participate in a segment of 60 minutes

• Dismissal of criminal prosecution for alleged violation of zoning and inland-wet land water course regulations, followed by civil suit filed on behalf of Defendant for malicious prosecution and vexatious litigation against Town and the two Commiss ions; settled during Jury Selection with payment of monetary damages by town.

• Suppression, following evidentiary hearing in Superior Court, of largest single amount of marijuana known to be seized in Middlesex County

• Represented Priest accused of embezzling significant sum of money from the Church; during lengthy, highly publicized State Police investigation, the defense discredited witnesses and disproved allegations, resulting in no arrest/prosecution, and Priest's complete exoneration

• Author of Appellant's brief in appeal to Connecticut Supreme Court on issue whether Workers' Compensation Statute excl uding benefits for scar resulting from spinal surgery violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution

• Action on behalf of student suffe ring serious eye injury while at school; after Supreme Court order to reconsider, the Appellate Court of Appeals rul ed that the Plaintiff had pled the case within the "identifiable person imminent hann" exception to the rule of governmental immunity that barred recovery of damages in lawsuits for school based injuries; case subsequentl y settled for high five figure sum

• Products liability action against nat ionally known manufac turer of an adjustable basketball system, in which a child suffered a fractured jaw when he was entangled in the net while "dunking" the lowered basket; the case settled in a federal court pre-trial for the highest sum paid for an entanglement injury by the manufacturer up to that date.

• Represented Plaintiff in li bel-slander action; verdi ct for Plainti ff with award of damages in high fi ve fi gure sum

• Represented Defendant in sui t on a promissory note and raised "usury" as a special defense; the verdict, in Defendant's favor, precluded Plaintiff from collecting either interest or principal on the note.

• Represented Plaintiff in suit against State of Connecticut in defective highway (sole proximate cause) action; (jury awarded Plaintiff damages in five figure sum.

• Products liability action (exploding bottle (cap)) against nationally known soda manufactures and local distributor; settlement mid-way through jury trial for high five figure sum.

• Arbitrated award of 1.2 million dollars for Plaintiff injured when knocked off ladder at construction site.

Precedent Setting Cases

 

Trial Court

 

Attorney Sprecher was the trial counsel in a murder case in which the prosecution called several jail house informants as witnesses. The Trial Judge, although allowing the Defendant to conduct an extensive voire dire on the subject, refused to give a requested jury instruction on the credibility of jail house informants; Attorney Sprecher raised and preserved the issue for post trial proceedings. The Connecticut Supreme Court found the refusal to be error, and held that whenever jailhouse informant testimony is given, regardless a/whether the informant has received an express promise of a benefit, the Court should give a special credibility instruction to the jury. This precedent setting holding is now contained in the Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions Section 2.5.3.

 

Appellate Court

 

Attorney Sprecher, engaged solely as Appellate Counsel, appealed the accused's conviction of three (3) counts of Risk of Injury To A Minor. The Defendant , a 66 year old male was sentenced to 6 years on each of the risk of injury charges with each count to be served

consecutively. The Appellate Court reversed the convictions based upon in sufficiency of the evidence. The State sought, and the Supreme Court granted certification. During the appeal the State attempted to argue that evidence in the record, which the prosecution in the trial court did not claim in argument as part of its theol)' of guilt, is properly cognizable by an Appellate Court when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court and establi shed as precedent that, in order for an Appeals Court to sustain a conviction when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, it must be shown that the evidence was not merely before the finder of fact due to an incidental reference, but rather as part of a coherent theory of guilt that, upon (review of) the principal stages of trial, can be characterized as having been presented in a focused or otherwise recognizable sense.