New Haven Independent

Public Defender: I Don’t Want Annie Le Reporters Investigated

by Paul Bass | September 21, 2009 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

New Haven’s top public defender is demanding an investigation into leaks about the Annie Le murder — but he promised he doesn’t want journalists subpoenaed.

New Haven’s Chief Public Defender Tom Ullmann (pictured) issued his call this weekend to have the State’s Attorney’s Office conduct a probe into how details became public about the investigation leading to the arrest last week of 24 year-old Raymond Clark on charges of having strangled Annie Le to death. The remains of Le, a 24 year-old Yale graduate student, were found in a basement wall last week.

Ullmann has assigned two attorneys from his office to represent Clark.

A judge ordered the arrest warrant sealed in the case. But details of how cops put together the case leaked out, most notably in the Hartford Courant.

Even before the arrest, Clark’s identity became public.

Ullmann sent a letter to New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington demanding a probe into the leaks. The published reports “potentially compromise” the trial by tainting the juror pool, Ullmann argued. He argued that pre-arrest identification of Clark also jeopardized his safety by leading hordes of reporters and angry citizens to surround Clark’s home, in Ullmann’s view.

Releasing information from the arrest warrant “violates a court order,” Ullmann added.

He was asked about a potential First Amendment concern: Does he want the state hounding reporters — subpoenaing notes or testimony, say?

Not at all, Ulmann insisted in a conversation Monday morning.

“I’m not blaming the press at all. The press does its job,” he said. He doesn’t want to “break sources” for reporters.

But he does want Dearington’s office to enlist an outside investigator to review police officers’ cellphone records and land line records to see who was talking to reporters.

Dearington could not be reached for comment Monday morning; he told the Register he shares Ullmann’s concern about leaks but considers a probe “easier said than done.”

New Haven Police Chief James Lewis was skeptical about a leak hunt.

For starters, said Lewis (pictured at a press conference announcing Clark’s arrest), some of the information printed about the case wasn’t true; reporters were just speculating.

Other information could have come from multiple places other than the New Haven police department, Lewis noted. As soon as the cops started interviewing citizens about the case, those citizens could very well have spread the word among their friends and relatives. (Indeed, talk about Clark emerged on Facebook when he was arrested.)

New Haven police have no internal investigation planned into the leak of information, Lewis said.

“I don’t plan to spend a lot of time on” this question, Lewis said. He said he imagines a reporter could theoretically come forward to divulge where information came from, but he’s not counting on it. And “I don’t believe I have a legal right” to compel the information.

Norm Pattis disagreed. He said Monday he’d like to see journalists subpoenaed to discover which cops are “using” reporters and hiding.

Pattis, a prominent local defense attorney and legal columnist and blogger, called the New Haven police department a “sieve” through which cops allegedly “ran their mouths” to portray a guilty portrait of Raymond Clark.

“The Fourth Estate is not a fourth branch of government,” Pattis said of the media. “Often reporters are used by sources in an illegitimate game of hide and go seek. They will leak something without their fingerprints on it to create an effect or cause harm.

“Reporters have a duty and an obligation to report the truth. When they are used by people with political agendas, those with political agendas should not be able to use it to hide.”

If Hugh Keefe, Why Not P.D.s?

Ullmann’s public defenders began representing Clark before his arrest. Usually defendants get a public defender after their arrests.

Indigent defendants deserve legal advice the same that wealthier clients do, Ullmann said. “If you have money and you can hire Hugh Keefe or Willie Dow, they’re going to give advice before arrests. Why shouldn’t we?”

His office has given pre-arrest advice “a bunch of times” over the years, Ullmann said. “In some cases, it’s avoided somebody getting arrested” unfairly. Ullmann said this is the first time it has happened this year.

Previous coverage of the Annie Le case:

Monday, Sept. 21
• What Annie Le Story?
Thursday, Sept. 17
• After Annie Le Murder, Union Chief Sends Rallying Call
• Annie Le Suspect Knew Cops Were On His Tail
• Cops Arrest Lab Tech In Annie Le Murder
• Suspect Arraigned (live blog)
Wednesday, Sept. 16:
• Ex-Girlfriend “Shocked” About Annie Le Target
• Cops Stake Out Annie Le Target’s Motel
• Annie Le Case: It’s Coming Down To The DNA
• Annie Le Was Strangled
Tuesday, Sept. 15:
• City, Yale Learned From Jovin In Annie Le Case
• Suspect In Annie Le Case Has Fiancee
• NBC Producer Trampled At Annie Le “Briefing”
• Cops Take DNA From Annie Le Target
• Was That Annie Le’s Killer?
Monday, Sept. 14:
• Body Identified As Annie Le
• “Serious” Suspect In Annie Le Case
• You Can Get In The Wall With A “Butter Knife”
• Lab Building Shuts Down
Sunday, Sept. 13:
• Remains Of Annie Le Believed Found; “A Time For Compassion,” Levin Says
• Annie Le Hunt Extends To Hartford
Saturday, Sept. 12
• Focus In Annie Le Probe Less On “State Lines”
Friday, Sept. 11
• City Cops Join Search For Annie Le; $10,000 Reward Posted

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: pammy | September 21, 2009 5:51 PM

Okay here we go, let us all concentrate on something like a "possible" leak instead of the fact that someone was MURDERED, I hate lawyers, they are the most crooked evil people that walk this earth, right off the bat this lawyer is trying to play the "look in another direction" game, so we won't pay attention to what his client is accused of. Give me a freaking break, and quit insulting our intelligence.

Posted by: pat | September 21, 2009 6:50 PM

Pammy thinks the way a lot of people do who don't understand the legal system and the protections in place for an accused.

Lawyers don't make the rules. The Constitution, Supreme Court and state legislatures do. Lawyers make sure the rules are followed.

If Pammy were the accused, regardless of her guilt or innocence, she'd want an unbiased jury to hear the evidence and then decide. If we could find people guilty or innocent based on newspaper reports, we could do away with judges and juries.

Would that be a better system than one in which lawyers pursue all possible means to protect their clients and force the State to prove its case by producing evidence?

Let's stop bashing lawyers for doing the important job of providing a defense, regardless of the ultimate guilt or innocence of the client.

If Pammy gets into legal trouble, she'll want a system that doesn't pre-judge her based on media reports.

Thanks to the system we still have - despite the public bashings - she'll get it.

Posted by: Andrew Ross | September 21, 2009 8:08 PM

AMEN!

Posted by: Lifer | September 21, 2009 10:56 PM

I am not a reporter but I was able to figure out Raymond Clark's name before it was announced. How?
- there was a big police presence outside Wharfside Commons apartments in Middletown prompting news reports that the alleged perp lived there on the first floor
- Googled Wharfside Commons to get the address
- Did "reverse lookup" of the address on whitepages.com to see who lived on the first floor
- looked up people who lived on first floor in Yale online directory
- found one Raymond Clark III listed as an animal care tech
So maybe no one leaked it - the police presence there was enough of a clue.

Posted by: Morris Cove | September 22, 2009 12:05 AM

I am never amazed at what lenghts the defense would go to protect the evil. If Tommy Ullmann hadn't sold his soul to the devil years ago, maybe he could see for himself that there are better ways to earn a living rather then defending the murders and rapist and child molesters of this world.

Posted by: Mister Jones | September 22, 2009 8:23 AM

Norm would like to see reporters subpoenaed? Seems he only likes the First Amendment when it serves his purposes.

Posted by: observer | September 22, 2009 9:29 AM

The best one edition and accurate coverage goes to the New York Daily News. Locally the New Haven Independent and Yale Daily News excelled in real journalism and no hype. Channel 8's Middletown coverage was good and I think Channel 3 did well in Cromwell. The others covered their tails with the old he said, she said, sources said routine. The Hartford Courant did have a short spell where three reporters together actually reported. My worst award goes to CNN. Their Judge Brown was pretty close and they spent the rest of the time ridiculing him. They had a female talking head who surmised it 100% wrong. So congratulations to The New Haven Independent for covering this in an interesting and accurate manner. You did this while the television media and the local papers merely reported what each other said. This is where the leaks and guesses surfaced while they all credited the other sources as "saying". Again good job to you.

Posted by: ctkeith | September 22, 2009 10:47 AM

Paul,

Did you explain to Attorney Pattis that Reporters have absolutely no "Duty to report the truth"?

As an Attorney you would think Mr Pattis would know this.As anyone who has ever watched Fox News or read any of the 17 daily newspapers in our state that are failing miserbly knows the Journalists of our time feel their job is to simply report what is said by participants in any story. They don't feel Correcting the record or trying to seperate truth from lies has anything to do with their profession and it shows.

Posted by: James | September 22, 2009 3:43 PM

Morris Cove, I hope you and Pammy never find yourself accused of a crime. Because without a lawyer, a trial, and, in short our flawed but excellent legal system, you'd simply go to jail with no means of recourse.

Sure, it looks like Clark is guilty, but shouldn't there be a trial to prove it? If not for the trial, how would an falsely accused person ever be able to object? Or should we just lock everybody up in the hopes that we got the right person? Or hey, maybe we can do it like American Idol. We can sit on our sofas and vote people guilty by text message! I mean, public opinion is always right, so who needs a justice system? Plus, you can snack while you judge! I love Bugles too, Pammy. Love em.

Lawyers are no more slimy than the plumber, the grocery store clerk, the consultant, or the farmer. They're people. Some of them are good people and some of them are scum. But at the end of the day, everybody should have a right to a trial. It's not up to the lawyer, the judge, or Pammy to decide who's guilty. That's for a jury to decide after they've heard the facts. Of course I trust that if you're ever accused of a crime you'll forgo the scum bag lawyers on principal and just serve the jail time. After all, if you've been accused you must have done it. Even if you didn't. Right? It's OK. I'll visit you in prison. I'll even bring Bugles.

Posted by: cba | September 23, 2009 5:38 PM

Castigating and smearing the legal profession is a game played by little minds who can't grasp the importance of civil rights in this great democracy.

Posted by: Note to self... | September 23, 2009 6:56 PM

Note to self ... get everyone to subpeona Pattis.

Posted by: Uncle Egg | September 25, 2009 10:35 AM

Hey Pammy. Last I checked, lawyers are supposed to DEFEND their clients. Our Constitution demands no less.

I for one am proud and grateful that I live in a society where the accused are innocent until a jury of their peers says otherwise, and have an opportunity to defend themselves. That ideal relies on defense attorneys willing to represent all suspects, no matter how apparent their guilt or innocence.

It's all well and good to go around waving the flag and singing the Star Spangled Banner. But it's nothing more than empty jingoism unless you're willing to accept the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, so lovingly enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Uncle Egg | September 25, 2009 11:01 AM

From what I recall from my newspaper-ing days, Norm Pattis has a tendency to run off at the mouth a bit when reporters are around himself.

Public Defender: I Don’t Want Annie Le Reporters Investigated

Comments

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed