145 Conn. App. 458
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 2006 a complaint alleged Rep. Minnie Gonzalez assisted Spanish‑speaking voters at the Hartford clerk’s office and was "knowingly present" while they executed absentee ballots in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9‑140b(e) (and possessing one ballot under § 9‑140b(d) was also alleged).
- SEEC investigators pursued the matter; on Oct 10, 2007 the Commission voted there was "reason to believe" violations occurred and a proposed consent decree was circulated; Commissioner Stephen Cashman volunteered to be hearing officer.
- Administrative hearings occurred in June–July 2009; the hearing officer found four violations (not Barry’s) and fined Gonzalez $4,500.
- Superior Court reversed two of the four § 9‑140b(e) findings (as to Jose and Maria Echevarria), sustained the other two (Raul and Jennie Rivera), and remanded for reconsideration of the fine.
- On appeal, Gonzalez argued (inter alia) hearing‑officer bias/prejudgment, lack of substantial evidence, improper exclusion of investigator statements, Brady‑type nondisclosure, and prejudice from investigatory delay. SEEC cross‑appealed the Superior Court’s reversal of the two Echevarria findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearing officer bias / prejudgment (due process) | Cashman prejudged case by voting "reason to believe," signing proposed consent decree, and volunteering as hearing officer; thus Gonzalez was entitled to recusal. | Cashman did not investigate; vote was collective; no actual bias shown; presumption of impartiality. | Court affirmed: Gonzalez failed to show actual bias or prejudgment; recusal denial proper. |
| Substantial‑evidence support for two sustained violations (Raul & Jennie Rivera) | Testimony and records contradicted SEEC; witnesses placed Gonzalez away from voters; thus findings were arbitrary and capricious. | Record (Gonzalez’s own November 27 letter, Barry’s testimony, receipts, clerk testimony) supported inference Gonzalez was present/aware; credibility is for factfinder. | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported findings as to Raul and Jennie. |
| Exclusion of investigator‑taken written statements (Jennie & Jose) | Investigator’s written statements should have been admitted (hearsay allowed in administrative hearings); exclusion prejudiced Gonzalez. | Statements were double hearsay, witnesses unavailable for cross‑exam, and admission discretionary; no demonstrated prejudice. | Court affirmed exclusion was within hearing officer’s discretion and Gonzalez did not show prejudice. |
| SEEC’s nondisclosure / Brady obligation and delay prejudice | SEEC failed to produce investigatory statements (Brady/constitutional duty) and delay made witnesses unavailable, prejudicing Gonzalez. | Brady applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil administrative enforcement; availability/remedies existed; Gonzalez sought continuances and didn’t preserve some arguments. | Court affirmed: Brady not applicable; nondisclosure claim fails; delay claim unpreserved and, on the merits, not sufficiently prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board, 129 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. 2011) (standards for administrative review and burden to show prejudice).
- Lucarelli v. Freedom of Information Commission, 135 Conn. App. 807 (Conn. App. 2012) (deference to agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence).
- Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790 (Conn. 2008) (substantial‑evidence rule and treatment of circumstantial evidence).
- Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 291 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2009) (presumption of impartiality for administrative adjudicators; proof of actual bias required).
- Altschul v. Salinas, 53 Conn. App. 391 (Conn. App. 1999) (agency factfinding and conflicting inferences do not defeat substantial evidence).
- State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (Conn. 2000) (Brady doctrine obligations apply in criminal prosecutions).
- Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (Conn. 1988) (investigative agencies treated as part of the State for Brady disclosure purposes).
- Tomlin v. Personnel Appeal Board, 177 Conn. 344 (Conn. 1979) (reversal for erroneous evidentiary ruling requires showing prejudice).
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (constitutional duty to preserve and disclose evidence in criminal cases).