Brantley Conviction Upheld

A three-judge state appellate panel has unanimously upheld the bribery conviction of New Haven firefighter Aaron Brantley, the latest development in a case that has divided the department and sparked community demonstrations.

Brantley was fired after he was convicted last year on felony attempted bribery charges. Then he got his job back when the state Freedom of Information Commission overturned his termination after finding that the city’s Board of Fire Commissioners had violated FOI rules in the process of firing him. Civil-rights groups rallied around Brantley, calling his firing and the criminal case a vendetta waged by a superior, then-Assistant Fire Chief Pat Egan. (Egan is white, Brantley, black.)

Meanwhile, Brantley filed an appeal of his conviction in November, but Appellate Court Judges Raheem Mullins, Christine Keller and William Lavery have now affirmed the lower courts’ ruling in the case this month.

The judges rebuffed Brantley’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his conviction in a 15-page opinion. The opinion is slated to be officially released April 12.

Brantley was originally arrested on two felony charges of attempted bribery. He was accused of trying to pay off two fire department officials, Deputy Fire Marshal Faustino Lopez and Fire Inspector Corey Bellamy, to help him win a discrimination complaint he had filed against Egan and the city with the Commission of Human Rights and Opportunity, stemming from a dispute over a workers compensation claim.

Brantley’s conviction hinged on testimony that he had offered both Lopez and Bellamy a percentage of any settlement money that he received from the lawsuit against Egan.

Chief Ralph Black said Tuesday he had not seen the new appellate ruling, so it’s too early to say what action the department might take.

Brantley, who was on a vacation day Tuesday at his post at the Westville firehouse, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Brantley’s attorney, Hugh Keefe, said it’s too early to say whether the firefighter will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, because he hasn’t yet analyzed the appellate decision.

Keefe noted that the basis of Brantley’s appeal had been on grounds of insufficient evidence. It’s ​“likely” the Supreme Court would rule the same way as the three appellate judges on that question based on fact-finding done by the court. So any further appeal would need to focus on a different argument, Keefe said.

“Aaron Brantley is one of the finest human beings I ever met,” Keefe said. ​“He should have been acquitted.”

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the statewide NAACP, called the appellate ruling ​“a miscarriage and a very said situation.”

“They have done everything in their power to destroy this young man and his family,” Esdaile remarked. ​“Hopefully the real culprits in this case will be brought to justice.”

What The Judges Said

In his appeal, Brantley argued there wasn’t enough evidence to uphold his conviction for two reasons: the evidence standard applied by the courts denied him due process, and there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he tried to influence Lopez’ testimony and that he offered Lopez a bribe.

The judges rejected his claims.

‘‘So we have testimony from two of the defendant’s friends, Lopez and Bellamy, that the defendant offered a benefit to them to testify on his behalf. There is no motive or bias that either of these witnesses have against the defendant … there’s no reason that this court finds that they would fabricate the story,” Judge Raheem Mullins wrote on behalf of the panel. ” It’s not like … Egan came in here and said that, where there’s obviously, to say the least, hard feelings between [him and the defendant] …. But what we have in front of this court is two individuals with, in this court’s opinion, no axe to grind, who were … approached by the defendant on separate dates and offered the same benefit to testify in official proceedings by the defendant, again, with no axe to grind.”

Citing previous judicial rulings about the reasonable-beyond-a-doubt threshold of guilt, the judges agreed with the lower court that the state had met its burden of proof regarding Brantley’s attempt at bribing Lopez.

“Therefore, as to this count the court finds that the state has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to influence the testimony of Mr. Lopez,” Mullins wrote. ​“So as to count two this court makes a finding of guilty.

“As we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt … nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the trier [of fact], would have resulted in an acquittal.… On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [trier of fact’s] verdict of guilty.’’

Brantley also had argued that he had an alibi for the time period in which it was alleged that he made the offer to Lopez, and that he wasn’t at the Grand Avenue fire marshal’s office during the week of June 18, 2012. He countered that allegation with one of his own — that Lopez had instead approached him for a cut of any future settlement.

“We are not persuaded,” Mullins wrote. ​“The record reveals the following relevant evidence presented at trial. The defendant presented the testimony of Charles Hewitt, a drill master in the fire department’s training division at 230 Ella Grasso Boulevard, who testified that the defendant reported to him there for light duty during the week of June 18, 2012. According to Hewitt, the defendant was at the Ella Grasso location each day that week.

“The court found that Hewitt’s testimony did not account completely for Brantley’s whereabouts during work hours for that week, and in fact Hewitt allowed him to work from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. instead of the usual 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. He was even allowed to attend his daughter’s eighth grade graduation ceremony on June 18 at 10 a.m. and return to work between 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., and he occasionally went to physical therapy during the workday. Hewitt also was absent from work on June 20, 2012.

“Also, the defendant testified that he stopped by the fire marshal’s office where Lopez was stationed at some point in time and that a discussion took place there in which Lopez asked him for a percentage of the proceeds from the defendant’s upcoming lawsuit. As noted, Lopez testified that ​‘maybe the week of [June] 18’ the defendant had approached him with the offer of 2 to 3 percent of any future recovery in exchange for certain testimony.”

What Lopez Said

Mullins wrote that a review of the record found enough evidence for the court to conclude that Brantley had attempted to bribe Lopez for a testimony supporting the charge that Egan had discriminated against him.

“In particular, the court credited Lopez’ testimony that the defendant had approached him with an offer of payment in exchange for altering his testimony and did not credit the defendant’s denial of the same or his testimony that the purported offer was a joke,” Mullins wrote. ​“According to Lopez, the defendant approached him ​‘maybe the week of [June] 18.’ The defendant also placed himself at the marshal’s office where Lopez was stationed when he admitted that he went there at some point in time and that the two joked about the potential payout from the defendant’s lawsuit. The defendant’s phone records corroborated Lopez’ testimony that the defendant had called him seeking reconsideration after he had rejected the initial offer.”

“Finally, although Hewitt testified that the defendant was generally at the Ella Grasso location that week, his testimony did not account for the defendant’s whereabouts during portions of Monday morning, all of Wednesday, portions of the remaining days of that week, or the defendant’s admitted stop by the marshal’s office where the discussion with Lopez took place. Viewing Hewitt’s testimony against the backdrop of the other relevant evidence, and mindful that the state was not required to prove that the defendant made Lopez an offer at a precise time and date, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the court reasonably could find that a benefit had been offered, as Lopez testified, during the week of June 18. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s second sufficiency claim.

“The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred.”

Paul Bass contributed reporting.