Judge Gruendel Returns To Branford School District

State Appellate Court Judge F. Herbert Gruendel took his three-member court on the road last week, returning to a school district he knows well. For two hours his court heard arguments on the stage at Branford High School as attorneys sought to reverse lower court rulings in a medical malpractice and a criminal case.

The audience was not the usual array of lawyers and clients in their Hartford courthouse. Instead about 500 students attended the arguments in the school’s auditorium. They had been prepped in advance by several town attorneys so that they had some idea of the cases and the law governing them. Still the language was largely legalese and at times was so opaque that at least some dozed off from time to time.

But some students studying forensic and social science asked questions that seemed worthy of budding lawyers. For the occasion the attorneys on stage were free to answer the student’s questions off the court record, Judge Gruendel told them. 

For Judge Gruendel, the former principal of nearby John B. Sliney Elementary school, it was a special day, one he began to coordinate months ago. The On Circuit program, a judicial-educational enterprise that began 16 years ago, takes the court into the schools. It draws on the nation’s history, back to when judges traveled to different towns on horseback to hear cases. 

“This is a big thing for me. I have lived here a long time,” Judge Gruendel told the audience. ​“I was a principal in a school. All three of our kids went to the Branford schools.” One of his sons, David Gruendel, teaches at Branford High and is the former head of the teachers union. He attended the morning’s event. So did BHS Vice Principal Anna Puglia, who pulled together the event on the school side. 

“We do this work so you will inherit fair communities under the fair application of the law,” Judge Gruendel told the students. At another point, he said: ​“we hope we will not see you in court again unless you are a lawyer representing a client.”

Judge Gruendel presided over a panel that included Judge Robert E. Beach, Jr., and Judge Richard A. Robinson, both of whom he told the audience were always willing to take the court to the state’s schools so that they could teach students about the law and about life.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE 
 
The first case centered on medical malpractice. At issue: Whether Gary E. Hartell, a chiropractor who performed acupuncture on Robin Mulcahy, a cancer patient, failed to clean her skin properly prior to performing acupuncture, an act Mulcahy said led to a serious infection and scarring. After a nine-day trial, the jury ruled that Hartell was not liable for malpractice. 

Hartell said Mulcahy’s conduct that caused her skin infection. He says she wiped her acupuncture wounds with a non-sterile tissue after she left his office, that she did this in her car. In legal terms, this means that her own conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Anthony J. Natale, a Hartford attorney who represents Mulcahy, argued that the trial judge made a number of errors, including his charge to the jury on the law, errors that he said led to the verdict against his client. It is up to the appellate court to decide if the trial judge was right or wrong. They cannot hear new or additional facts; they must rule based on the trial court record. 

Beverly S. Knapp, Hartell’s attorney, told the judges that the jury got it right: ​“If the court accepts the plaintiff’s theory it would be inconsistent with the law of many years.”

As the judges tried to figure out what caused the infection, how it got to the skin, Judge Beach interjected an image that Branford high kids could relate to. ​“Considering where we are, this is a whole different hornet’s nest,” he said, referring to the wasp symbol that dominates the high school’s athletic teams.

Appellate judges typically interject at any point in a lawyer’s argument. The three judges did not disappoint, each peppering the lawyers with questions. Here is Judge Robinson at work.

Judge Beach commented that the entire trial transcript was not available to the bench. He seemed concerned about that. 

After a 40- minute argument, time was up. Judge Gruendel thanked the attorneys. ​“Good briefs and good arguments,” he said. 

After the judges left the room Second Selectman Andy Campbell, an attorney, who had helped prep the students, asked those who wanted to ask questions to line up at the microphone. 

Unlike the judges and the attorneys on the stage who identified themselves by name, none of the students gave their names, their class or any other information about themselves when they addressed the lawyers. And while the court initially said they could be photographed by the press, school officials quashed that. 

One student asked whether actions by each one in the case might be responsible for what happened to the patient. Another wondered why the judges did not have full access to the trial transcript. A third asked what was the actual dispute in law? The attorneys for each side gave answers. 

One of the final questioners was David Gruendel, the judge’s son. He wondered whether the chiropractor gave his patient ​“any instructions of what to do should the wound start to bleed.”

Attorney Knapp replied: ​“I don’t recall any evidence on that.” 

The questions ended to a round of applause.

After a brief break, the court convened and the judges returned to the bench. A court officer on stage called the next case.

CRIMINAL DUI CASE

The second case centered on a drunk driving conviction that came after a blood test was given to a young man who seriously injured a pedestrian in Windham in August 2007.

According to the facts, the driver of the car, Christopher Doyle crashed into victim after he landed his car on the man’s front lawn. Judge Gruendel noted that Doyle had prior DUI convictions. 

Police said they detected the odor of alcohol on Doyle’s breath and administered three field sobriety tests, which Doyle passed. At this juncture he was not arrested because police did not have probable cause that he was intoxicated. 

At one point Judge Gruendel asked the attorneys if ​“anyone who consents to drive in this state also consents to these field tests.”

The answer was yes. The students were listening now.

But police also knew they had the right to ask for a blood test because a person had been seriously injured, Melissa L. Streeto, the assistant state’s attorney in the case, told the court. Doyle consented to a blood test twice, at the scene and when he arrived at the hospital. After his blood was drawn, he was charged with assault and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. 

Doyle’s attorney, Kevin Connors, argued that after Doyle passed the sobriety test, his client should have been allowed to leave because he has not been arrested. Connors’s position was that his client was distraught by the accident and that he did not know he had a right to refuse the blood test. 

The judges peppered Connors with questions. Isn’t this case about the ​“free to leave standard,” Judge Robinson asked. ​“Yes,” said Connors. ​“Unfortunately the trial court applied wrong standard.”

Streeto noted Doyle was not handcuffed, restrained or confined in the police cruiser, implying he was not in police custody. 

At trial, Doyle moved to suppress the results of his blood test, claiming he did not voluntarily consent to having his blood drawn. He lost at the trial level. His attorney argued that his blood test was the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Streeto said Doyle freely gave his consent to the blood tests, not once but twice, an observation Judge Gruendel made as well. ​“This entire discussion is immaterial to this analysis. Once he gave his consent, this eliminated any Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue,” she said. She added that Doyle was 24 and college educated.”

Connors said: ​“Our argument is that he passed the sobriety test and he should have been told he could leave.”

After the arguments ended, Judge Gruendel took a moment to explain to the students that ​“what we do on appeals is to decide whether reversible mistakes were made by the trial court.” He thanked them for their involvement in the morning proceedings.

As the judges left the stage, attorneys Connors and Streeto (pictured) walked to the front of the stage. 

The students lined up to ask questions. One asked the lawyers: ​“Was it ever taken into consideration that [Doyle’s] drunken state may have made him difficult for him to consent [to the blood test]?”

Not really, they were told. 

Attorney Robert Casale, along with Attorney Martha Wieler, and Campbell helped prep the students. Casale was on stage, encouraging the students in their thinking. 

One student asked: ​“What would happen if the defendant refused to take the blood test?”

Streeto, the state’s attorney, said ​“Nothing would have happened. He could have.” 

“Why didn’t he refuse?” the student asked.

“That,” said Connors ​“is the $64,000 question”.

After the stage was cleared David Gruendel, the judge’s son, had the final word.

“Next class: Fifth period!” And out the door they went as the court officers gathered round in the lobby, their security detail over for the day. 

###