Skip to main content
· 4/8/2020

State v. Kosuda-Bigazzi

Citations

  • 335 Conn. 327

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been charged with murder and tampering with physical evidence, filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the charges against her on the ground that the police prejudiced her prosecution when they executed search warrants for her home and seized and exam- ined privileged information that was thereafter published in their arrest warrant application. The police had gone to the home that the defendant shared with H, the defendant's husband, to perform a wellness check after H's employer reported that he had not been seen in several months. After observing human remains in the home, the police executed two search warrants. During the second search, the police seized three sepa- rate files from a filing cabinet. The first file, labeled ''INCIDENT 2017,'' contained about twenty-five pages, most of which were handwritten. The second file, labeled ''CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY Oct 2017,'' contained about 150 pages. The third file contained estate planning documents. The police then obtained an arrest warrant for the defen- dant's alleged murder of H. The arrest warrant application included the verbatim text of a handwritten, four page narrative from the seized material that apparently described the events that led to H's death. The defendant alleged that, during the search of her home, the police read and inspected two documents that were protected by the attorney-client privilege, namely, the four page narrative and a document that reflected her trial strategy, both of which, she claimed, the state could use in preparation of its case against her in violation of her constitutional rights to a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to State v. Lenarz (301 Conn. 417) to determine the extent of the violation of the attorney-client privilege and the prejudice to the defendant, and whether the state's remedial actions and other remedies could serve to cure any prejudice. During the hea

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that if an “issue was waived, it cannot be grounds for reversal on appeal”
  • explaining that “the one who owns or holds the note is entitled to foreclose”
  • “Allowing assignments to be retroactively effective would be inimical to the requirements of pre-suit ownership for standing in foreclosure eases.”
  • “Allowing assignments to be retroactively effective would be inimical to the requirements of pre-suit ownership for standing in foreclosure cases.”
  • “Allowing assignments to be retroactively effective would be inimical to the requirements of pre-suit ownership for standing in foreclosure cases.”
  • “Allowing assignments to be retroactively effective would be inimical to the requirements of pre-suit ownership for standing in foreclosure cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.