A court hearing scheduled to determine whether Bethel First Selectman Robert Burke is eligible for probation was delayed Friday due to "an issue" that arose between the parties involved in the case.
Senior Assistant State's Attorney David Holzbach said in Superior Court that "an issue has arisen between the parties in which we thought there was an agreement." He declined to comment on the nature of the issue that delayed the hearing.
Burke, who was arrested in August on a second-degree harassment charge, had applied last month for Accelerated Rehabilitation, a special form of probation available only to first-time offenders.
As someone who attended the first court hearing, the only agreement I could remember was the following...
At Burke's first court hearing Sept. 8, Judge Salvatore Agati issued a protective order barring him from contact with the woman -- who has moved out of state -- or her daughter.
Now, this is only speculation, but if Burke somehow broke that agreement, that would be rather bad news for the soon to be former First Selectman.
What was also a bit puzzling was that one of the alleged victims appeared in court.
The daughter appeared in court briefly on Friday and Agati asked if she wanted to make any comments or wait until Jan. 5 when the case would be heard again. The woman indicated she would like to return next month.
When asked by the The News-Times if she would like to make any comments about the case, she said "not at this time."
Now, I couldn't attend court today but from all indications, this hearing should had been a simple matter in which Burke's eligibility for accelerated rehabilitation would be determined. Whatever "issue" happened seemed to have delayed the case...and that should raise some level of concern.
...and for Burke's sake, I hope I'm proven wrong.
UPDATE: Seems like in Dirk's update, the "issue" in the Burke case seems to point in the same direction I'm hearing from several sources.
A court hearing to determine whether Bethel First Selectman Robert Burke is eligible for probation was delayed Friday due to "an issue" surrounding a protective order.
[...]
State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky, the main prosecutor handling the case, said Friday's hearing was held up by something related to the protective order issued in the case. He declined to comment on the exact nature of the dispute.
Sedensky also declined to comment on whether the issue that delayed Friday's hearing was connected to a complaint the Danbury Police Department received sometime before Oct. 9.
Again, this is all speculation at this point and we'll know more soon...
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
