Yesterday, I took a trip to Danbury Superior Court i order to provide an update on the case against Troy Grant.
The 41 year old former youth counselor for Pathways Danbury was arrested and charged with numerous charges stemming from his alleged sexual involvement with teenage boys (complete list of charges against Grant are listed below):
According to the police affidavit, Grant admitted to having sexual relations with one of the victims but denied that he provided alcohol to any minors.
As the hearing started, it was learned that the prosecutor offered a plea deal to Grant that consisted 85 years jail time, suspended after 40 years, with 35 years probation and being placed on the sex offender list.
That offer was rejected.
A plea deal was also offered by Judge Susan Reynolds, which was not supported by the prosecution, which consisted of 40 years jail time suspended after 18 years, probation for 35 years, and sex offender registration.
Grant rejected the offer.
Here's the best transcript I could jot down of the conversation between Judge Reynolds and Grant:
Judge: Knowing that if this goes to trial, you can possible be incarcerated for an excess to 100 years.
Grant: Yes your honor.
Judge: Do you wish to reject the court's offer of 40 years, execution suspended after 18 years, 35 years probation…this will not be put back on the table...once it's gone, it's gone.
Grant: Yes your honor.
Judge: And you wish to reject
Grant: Yes your honor.
Having rejected the two offers, Grant opted to take his case to a jury. The case is to be continued on November 10th.
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.
