Annie Le Suspect Enters No Plea; Warrants Remain Sealed

by Melissa Bailey | October 20, 2009 3:16 PM | | Comments (4)

Yale lab technician Raymond Clark made an appearance in Connecticut Superior Court on Church Street Tuesday afternoon in connection with charges that he killed 24-year-old Yale graduate student Annie Le and hid her body inside a wall at a medical building. At issue: Whether he would plead; whether he’ll seek a probable cause hearing; whether the arrest warrant and eight search warrants should remain under seal. Following is a live minute-by-minute account from the courthouse.

1:28 p.m. A dozen reporters are camped outside Courtroom 6A. The doors are expected to open at 1:45 p.m. A sketch artist was let in early to set up in the jury box. Proceedings are scheduled at start at 2 p.m.

1:49 p.m. The number of reporters present has now grown to 15. Sketch artists: 2.

1:51 p.m. Will Clark plead today? Reporters debate the question in whispers as we await hearing.

2:01 p.m. Five marshals are here. Public defender Joe Lopez enters the room. No sign of the judge yet.

2:16 p.m. Court’s in session. Clark enters the courtroom in handcuffs, leg shackles, and an orange jump suit. He has a new buzz cut.

2:18 p.m. Clark won’t be entering a plea today, according to public defender Beth Merkin. That’s because the defense has made no decision yet on whether Clark will waive his right to a probable cause hearing. Defense still needs to see more evidence from police before making the decision.

2:19 p.m. Judge Roland Fasano has set a date of Nov. 3 at 2 p.m. to consider whether there will be a hearing for probable cause. If Clark waives right to the hearing, he will likely enter a pro-forma not guilty plea at that time.

2:20 p.m. Discussion begins on the motion by the Hartford Courant, joined by the New Haven Register, the AP and The New York Times, about whether to un-seal the arrest warrant and other court documents. The defense and prosecution want to keep the documents sealed.

2:38 p.m. Public defender Merkin argues to continue the seal of the arrest warrant and eight search warrants. She said unsealing them would threaten Clark’s right to a fair trial. Judge Fasano says there’s a difference between those two types of warrants: The court traditionally has a presumption that arrest warrants should be open to the public. There’s a stronger legal basis to keeping the search warrants sealed, Merkin agrees.

2:40 p.m. State prosecutor John Waddock reveals that Annie Le’s family, too, has asked for the seal to remain. Waddock says the state filed a request today asking that the arrest and search warrants remain sealed. “This has been an extremely emotional and distressing time for them,” he says. They’re “deeply concerned” that unsealing the warrants would “invade their privacy rights.” Those rights have “already been infringed upon by constantly being contacted” by media. The victim’s right to privacy is one factor the judge may consider in extending the seal, Waddock says. He agrees with Merkin’s arguments for continuing the seals.

2:50 p.m. Courant’s lawyer Paul Guggina is now representing all four outlets fighting to make the warrants public. He argues that the right to free speech is as important as the right to a fair trial. Plus, he argues, a lot of facts are already out in the public, so there is no justification keep those facts under seal.

3:04 p.m. Clark listens quietly to the debate. One of the sketch artists zooms in on his face with binoculars.

3:05 p.m. Court adjourns. No decision today on the seal. Seal will remain in effect for at least two more weeks while Judge Fasano considers which parts, if any, to make public. Lopez and Merkin leave the room to talk to their client.

3:15 p.m. Guggina meets with reporters outside court. He says the strongest argument in favor of opening the warrants is that Connecticut has a individual voir dire process, by which each juror is interviewed as to their biases on the case. This allows the defense to ensure that a juror has not been sullied by press coverage of the murder case. This means there should more openness of documents because the defense has greater power to eliminate tainted jurors, he argues. (Click on the play arrow at the top of this story to watch.)

Background

Clark is being held at the McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield; his bond is set at $3 million.

Today’s hearing had two purposes: First, for the defense to report back to the judge on whether his client will waive his right to the probable cause hearing.

Second, for the judge to consider a motion from the Hartford Courant to unseal the arrest warrant, along with a defense motion to keep it sealed.

Police have said they based his arrest on over 300 pieces of evidence, and that the state crime lab did DNA testing to solve the crime. The details remain closed to the public in arrest and search warrants that were sealed in court. The documents were sealed by Judge Fasano by request of the state prosecutors and defense attorneys.

On the morning of Clark’s Oct. 6 court appearance, the Hartford Courant filed a motion objecting to that seal. Three other news outlets later joined them.

“The public has a presumptive right of access to the arrest warrant affidavit and any related documents presently under seal,” argued Paul Guggina, the Courant’s attorney, in a motion filed in court.

The arguments boil down to: Is there a stronger interest that overrides the public’s right to know what’s in the documents?

In a Sept. 24 motion, Public Defenders Lopez and Merkin asked that the warrant remain under seal because releasing it “would irreparably prejudice the defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to an impartial jury and to a fair trial.” Lopez said he requested the seal in part to give defense attorneys more time to examine information about the case before it is made public.

“Sealing orders may not be extended for the convenience of parties or as a matter of course,” Guggina responded. Under statutory and constitutional law, he argued, the public has the right to see a court document unless a party can prove three things: That there is “an overriding interest in keeping the affidavit secret”; that “sealing the order is the only remedy available for satisfying that interest”; and that the sealing order is “narrowly tailored to provide the public as much access as possible.”

Guggina argued that Lopez and Merkin failed to prove those conditions necessary to justify the seal.


Previous coverage of the Annie Le case:

Tuesday, Oct. 6
Live Blog: Lawyer For Annie Le Murder Suspect Wants To See The Evidence
Friday, Sept. 25
Warrant In Annie Le Murder To Stay Sealed
Thursday, Sept. 24
Cops Back At Annie Le’s Lab Building
Monday, Sept. 21
What Annie Le Story?
Public Defender: I Don’t Want Annie Le Reporters Investigated
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: chris | October 20, 2009 4:54 PM

Annie Le's story really bothered me. It was a senseless crime, cruel and brutal, that robbed all of us of her unlimited potential both personal and professional. She was an amazing young woman who accomplished more in 24 years then most of us in a lifetime. Here is a nice tribute.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG2_NI-vZDo

Posted by: M N | October 20, 2009 5:00 PM

Thank you for your detailed and well written report. I appreciate the detailed report and chronological account of the event as it unfolds in the courtroom.
I am following the case from California because it would be a financial and time consuming effort to go attend the court hearings.
Thank you again and i will be looking mainly at this site for news regarding the case of Annie Le.

Posted by: robn | October 20, 2009 6:44 PM

I'm all for 1st amendment rights but can't we wait until a jury is seated until knowing more? The only conceivable public value of knowing more now is if the killer is still at large and if the arrest warrants reasonably suggest that the arrestee didn't do it (unlikely since thats the antithesis of an arrest warrant).

Posted by: tiffany bui rothman | October 21, 2009 10:10 AM

Please respect the wish of Annie's family. It will bring more pain for the two families and her love ones now. We are adults, we know what Raymond Clark III did with her body after he killed her. There are enough evidents to convict him. Let Annie's relatives and friends heal a little longer over this terrible ordeal.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35