The Connecticut Appellate Court heard two cases at the Quinnipiac School of Law on Oct. 10 as part of their “On Circuit” program. The program allows students to hear real court cases and interact with the arguing lawyers.
The program began in 1996 and has since heard cases at over 20 high schools and colleges across the state.
“Each year, the court selects a school at which to hear arguments, with the goal of educating students about the role and responsibilities of the appellate system through this interactive and engaging real-life experience,” according to the Connecticut Appellate Court website.
In its first year, the program visited Quinnipiac, back when it was still a college. Last week was the fourth time the court visited the university.
The presiding judges, Melanie Cradle, Dawne Westbrook and Robin L. Wilson, heard one criminal and one civil case.
Cradle noted that the “On Circuit” program is “a unique educational opportunity for the students.”
In each hearing, there was 40 minutes of oral argument — 20 minutes for each side — followed by a 20-minute question and answer segment between the lawyers and students present in the courtroom. Each attorney representing the appellant also gave a brief response. The final verdict on the cases is not shared during these hearings.
The criminal case State v. Stanley Velazquez out of the Bridgeport Judicial District was heard first.
“At issue is whether information contained within the four corners of an affidavit established probable cause for issuance of a search warrant,” a press release for the hearings stated. “Another issue is whether the trial court improperly relied on evidence outside the four corners of an affidavit and made clearly erroneous factual findings.”
John Gulash, the attorney representing the appellant, Stanley Velazquez, gave his oral argument first, followed by Timothy Surgue, the assistant state’s attorney representing the appellee, State of Connecticut.
For a large part of their arguments, they looked at the language used in the warrant and determined what it meant to be “physically observed.”
“It’s not a matter of tricking an officer into using precise language,” Gulash argued.
Surgue’s argument had a strong focus on the second issue of the case and the reliability of the evidence used.
“We have an extremely compelling showing of reliability,” Surgue said.
The second was a civil case, Annette Afonso v. Isaiah Torres, out of the Waterbury Judicial District regarding a dog bite.
“At issue is whether the trial court properly found there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant is not the ‘keeper’ of the dog,” the press release explained. “Another issue is whether the defendant, as property owner, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff pedestrian.”
The attorney representing the appellant, Annette Afonso, was Brenden Nelligan who argued Ashely Noel, the attorney representing the appellee, Isaiah Torres.
The arguments for the case focused heavily on language, looking to determine the definitions and differences of owner and keeper in regards to the dog as well as the property the incident occurred on.
The “landowner is responsible for conditions on property,” Nelligan argued.
Noel opposed his claims.
“The plaintiff’s interpretation of the term ‘possession’ or ‘control’ is simply too narrow,” Noel said.
After their arguments, the presiding judges went into recess and the court adjourned.
During the Q&A portion of each hearing the arguing attorneys provided law students with advice for their intended career — all four noted the importance of exposing themselves to different areas of law.
“Have an open mind, expose yourself to different environments,” Surgue said.
The attorneys also shared guidance in how to approach challenging questions from judges while presenting an argument.
“You always want to take a moment to think,” Noel said. “Be frank if you don’t know the answer.”
Through both the arguments and Q&A, students studying and working to have a career in law gained insight into appellate courts as well as lessons to carry with them.
