On January 7, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard argu­ments in State of Connecticut v. Russell Peeler, in which state pros­e­cu­tors are seek­ing to over­turn the court’s 4 – 3 deci­sion last sum­mer declar­ing Connecticut’s death penal­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The court ruled in August in State v. Santiago that Connecticut’s prospec­tive leg­isla­tive repeal of the death penal­ty, in com­bi­na­tion with ​“the state’s near total mora­to­ri­um on car­ry­ing out exe­cu­tions over the past fifty-five years,” estab­lished that ​“cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment has become incom­pat­i­ble with con­tem­po­rary stan­dards of decen­cy in Connecticut.” If the court holds to that deci­sion, the state’s remain­ing death row pris­on­ers would be resen­tenced to life with­out pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. One of the four jus­tices who vot­ed with the major­i­ty, Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., retired recent­ly, chang­ing the make­up of the court. Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who vot­ed with the minor­i­ty in the Santiago deci­sion, wor­ried that the appeal presents the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a ​“slip­pery slope,” say­ing, ​“Why should­n’t the court be con­cerned that every time there’s a hot­ly con­test­ed 4 – 3 deci­sion … that this isn’t just going to become a num­bers game, that the par­ties will then wait until some­body retires or leaves the court and raise the issue again?” Prosecutors argued that the court’s deci­sion, ​“elim­i­nat­ed the demo­c­ra­t­ic process.” Senior Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher, who argued on behalf of the death row inmates, said, ​“This is a unique deci­sion and a unique prob­lem far dif­fer­ent than inter­pret­ing a statute, and the major­i­ty found that it was a fair­ly clear state­ment that the death penal­ty no longer com­ports with the stan­dards of decen­cy of Connecticut cit­i­zens as expressed through their elected representatives.”

Justice Andrew J. McDonald — who joined the major­i­ty deci­sion say­ing that Connecticut’s death penal­ty vio­lat­ed its state con­sti­tu­tion — com­ment­ed to pros­e­cu­tors dur­ing argu­ment that ​“there is noth­ing that has tran­spired in either fact or legal ways” that has changed the basis for the court’s deci­sion in Santiago ​“oth­er than your belief that it was wrong.” Rademacher argued, ​“What the state is ask­ing this court to do … is sim­ply breath­tak­ing. It is ask­ing this court to over­rule a long line of cas­es that have affirmed the court’s author­i­ty as a con­sti­tu­tion­al mat­ter to pro­tect the cit­i­zens of this state against cru­el and unusual punishment.”

(A. Griffin, ​“Supreme Court Justices Hear Arguments On Repeal Of Connecticut Death Penalty Ban,” Hartford Courant, January 7, 2016; A. Griffin, ​“Death Penalty Back Before State Supreme Court,” Hartford Courant, January 7, 2016) See Recent Legislation and Connecticut.

Citation Guide