Perlitz Dismissal was Correct.

Perlitz Dismissal was Correct July 15, 2010 at 7:46 am by Rich Meehan Survivors of sexual abuse and victim's rights groups are apparently outraged at the ruling this week by District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissing the indictment against Douglas Perlitz. The former Fairfield U. grad has been awaiting trial for multiple counts of sexual improprieties alleged to have been committed on young Haitians. None of the allegations against Perlitz claim that he victimized anyone in Connecticut. Rather the Government was attempting to bootstrap its Connecticut prosecution based on his fund raising within the state and other minimal contacts. The basis of Judge Arterton's ruling is that Connecticut is not the proper venue for this indictment. To the uninitiated it appears that Arterton's ruling somehow sets the stage to free a potential predator. That is a gross misreading of the case. Courts can only bring criminal defendants to trial if they have appropriate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is an important legal concept. First the court must have the lawful authority over the subject matter. In a criminal case that jurisdictional issue focuses on the conduct. Is it a violation of federal law? To be so it must implicate interstate commerce. Without that element prosecution would be the sole province of the state where the conduct occurred. The basis for any federal criminal law is that it affects actions between the various states. The "interstate commerce" requirement is usually easily met. Transactions do not necessarily have to be across state lines as long as there is some conduct that utilizes something that moves in interstate commerce. Venue is a separate issue. It is the question of whether the location chosen to adjudicate the issues has the appropriate contact with the crimes alleged. Defending oneself in the federal system is a costly matter. The Government has virtually limitless resources. Only the most experienced–and thus by definition– most expensive lawyers defend federal criminal cases. Every advantage goes to the Government. The Grand Jury can work for years assembling evidence and building a case for the prosecutors. When an indictment is issued the federal rules require swift movement toward a trial. If the Government was not required to chose the locale where the conduct occurred it could seek to indict a Connecticut resident in any state. Connecticut cases could be brought, on a whim, in California or Alaska, or wherever the Government chose. How then does the Connecticut defendant mount a defense? Witnesses would be difficult to bring to the trial. The costs would increase exponentially. Perlitz has not won his war. He has won an opening skirmish. Judge Arterton has set the stage for the Government to seek to indict him on charges in districts where they allege that he boarded flights to Haiti. Having won this skirmish he may end up facing multiple prosecutions in the various states that were points of embarkation for his Haitian travels. It may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Rich Meehan is a senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com ____________________ Pour vos activités Import-Export : TOTAL SHIPPING & TRANSPORT, Ltd., 57, Rue 14 I-J Cap-Haitien, Haiti, Tél: (509) 3740-4040, ralphdgeorges@gmail.com