Troy Grant, a former youth counselor in Danbury who faces more than 100 years in prison on sexual assault charges, was given three choices in Danbury Superior Court Wednesday.
Hire a new attorney, represent yourself, or qualify for a public defender, said Judge Susan Sheridan Reynolds.
Reynolds granted Grant’s former attorney the right to drop the case. She also kept Grant behind bars awaiting trail, rather than grant his motion to dismiss his arrest for failing to appear in court in December.
Today, we received more insight into the failed relationship between Grant and his former attorney, as well as insight into Grant's refusal to accept two plea deals that was offered to him.
Diamond explained that he and Grant have failed to communicate and that Grant hasn’t paid Diamond for Grant’s upcoming trial.
[...]
“He is not participating in the trial preparation and he is not participating in the plea negotiations,” Diamond said.
The state initially offered Grant a plea deal of 85 years suspended after 45 years, and Grant rejected that offer. He was then offered a deal that cut that in half, or “more than half,” Diamond said, down to 18 years, and Grant refused it.
“Mr. Grant decided he wanted a jury trail,” Diamond said. “Mr. Grant has just not cooperated in my efforts to represent him. I think the attorney-client relationship has broken down.”
Seeing that Grant basically admitted to his crime to the police, and is facing a possibility of being locked up for the rest of his life, I never understood why he didn't accept the plea deal of 18 years.
It seems like Grant has made his situation all the more complicated...and he has only himself to blame.
UPDATE 9:30: The News-Times write-up on today's hearing just hit the wire.
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.
The trial of Troy Grant continued today...unfortunately, I was unable to attend the proceedings but here's what The Danbury Patch reported...
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.
