Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to Danbury Superior Court, but according to the recent write-up on the case by the News-Times, I didn't miss that much since Grant failed to appear in court, which was a BIG mistake.
In a bit of irony, Troy Grant failed to appear Friday at a hearing on his defense attorney's motion to withdraw from the case in which the beleaguered former youth counselor faces multiple charges of sexual assault.
Grant, 41, had pleaded not guilty to the charges and was free on bail, but when he didn't show up to court on Friday the judge raised his bond to $750,000 from $300,000 and issued a rearrest order, according to Grant's lawyer, James Diamond.
"He (Grant) failed to appear in court. His bond was called and forfeited," Diamond said. "The motion would not be heard."
In the motion he filed at Danbury Superior Court, Diamond said his attorney-client relationship with Grant had "broken down irretrievably." He also claimed his client had "failed to honor the retainer agreement."
Grant not showing up in court today was idiotic to say the least. Now his bond is increased to a quarter million dollars and the judge issued his re-arrest. Given the time he faces if convicted, and the fact that his attorney wants nothing to do with him, lets just say that 2011 isn't going well for Grant.
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.
This case has gone from bad to REAL bad.
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.
