Research Briefing

Senate Democrats Give Robert Chatigny A Re-Run At A Promotion, Before They Leave To Campaign

Today The Senate Judiciary Committee Votes Again On Judge Robert Chatigny’s Nomination To The 2^nd Circuit. (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Executive Business Meeting, 9/30/10)

Attorney General Holder Calls On The Senate To Confirm Obama’s Judicial Nominees Before The November Election – Will Senate Dems Vote To Confirm Chatigny? “Nominee after nominee has languished in the Senate for many months, only to be confirmed by wide bipartisan margins when they finally do receive a vote. As Congress finishes its last week in session before the November elections, our judicial system desperately needs the Senate to act.” (Eric Holder, “Now Vacant: A Confirmation Crisis In Our Courts,” The Washington Post, 9/28/10)

JUST LIKE OBAMA’S OTHER JUDICIAL NOMINEES, CHATIGNY PLAYED THE CONFIRMATION GAME

Like Goodwin Liu, Chatigny Followed Justice Kagan’s Advice To Play The Game: That Without Pressure Nominees Aren’t Compelled To Disclose “Their Views On Legal Issues,” And End Up Playing The Confirmation Game. “More, I am sure both judges knew that they were playing the game in full accordance with a set of rules that others had established before them. If most prior nominees have avoided disclosing their views on legal issues, it is hard to fault Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer for declining to proffer this information. And finally, I suspect that both appreciated that, for them (as for most), the safest and surest route to the prize lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence. Who would have done anything different, in the absence of pressure from members of Congress?” (Elena Kagan, “Confirmation Messes, Old And New,” 62 University of Chicago Law Review 919 (1995))

Chatigny Rationalized His Actions During The Ross Death Penalty Case By Stating That He “Believed Then And I Believe Now That I Did The Right Thing, But I Went About It In The Wrong Way.” Judge Robert Chatigny: “The way I spoke to Mr. Paulding, I used words that were excessive, words that were harsh, I regretted them immediately and I apologized to him at the earliest opportunity. And he was very gracious to me, say to me that no apology was necessary. But yes, I do, acknowledge that my choice of words was terrible. It’s a situation that I believed then and I believe now that I did the right thing, but I went about it in the wrong way.” (Robert Chatigny, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/28/10)

And Even Though Chatigny Has A “History Of Doling Out Light Sentences For Sexual Crimes,” He Stated In His Hearing That Empathy Does Not Come Into Play And “He Only Relies On The Facts And The Law.” “On the subject of Chatigny’s history of doling out light sentences for sexual crimes such as possession of child pornography, Coburn dug up an old speech to a liberal legal group in which he blasted minimum sentence laws because when judges rule, “empathy inevitably comes into play as it should.” Coburn asked if empathy comes into play when Chatigny rules on cases. ‘No,’ he responded, he only relies on the facts and the law.” (Jonathan Strong, “Obama Judicial Nominee Chatigny: I’m So, So Sorry For Supporting Sexual Sadist,” The Daily Caller, 4/29/10)

AS A JUDGE, CHATIGNY STATED THAT HE BELIEVED A SERIAL KILLER’S “SEXUAL SADISM” WAS A “MITIGATING FACTOR” IN HIS DEATH SENTENCE…

In 1987, Michael Ross Admitted To Raping And Murdering Eight Women Across Connecticut And New York, And Was Sentenced To Death By A Jury. “Ross admits killing eight young women in Connecticut and New York between 1981 and 1984. He was deemed competent last month by a doctor appointed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Ross was sentenced to death in 1987.Ross’ victims were 14 to 25 when he strangled them to death. Ross admitted raping all but one of them first. Six of his victims were from Connecticut. Ross received his death sentence in 1987 in the cases of four victims.” (Phil Hirschkorn, “Appeals Court Halts Ross Execution,” CNN, 1/25/05)

But In 2005, Chatigny Ignored A Connecticut “Supreme Court Decision That Had Lifted A Stay” Of Ross’ Execution. “Five GOP state legislators yesterday called on Congress to investigate a federal judge’s aggressive tactics that led to the postponement of what would have been New England’s first execution in 45 years. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny last week berated the attorney for convicted killer Michael Ross, saying the lawyer was ‘terribly, terribly wrong’ in aiding Ross’ effort to be put to death. The legislators also claim Chatigny acted inappropriately by ignoring a Supreme Court decision that had lifted a stay of execution. They called for him to step aside in the case.” (Nation Digest, “Connecticut Legislators Want Judge Investigated,” The Seattle Times, 2/3/05)

Chatigny Did Not Recuse Himself From The Case Even Though He Was On Ross’ Defense Team “13 Years Earlier.” “[T]hey allege that Judge Chatigny committed misconduct in failing to recuse himself (or at least reveal the facts) where, 13 years earlier, as an attorney in private practice representing the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (“CCDLA”) he had a brief involvement in Ross’s case.” (Report To The Judicial Council Of The Second Circuit, “Investigate Allegations of Judicial Misconduct,” 7/11/06)

Chatigny “Abandoned Neutrality And Became An Advocate On Behalf Of Saving Ross From Execution.” “[T]he Complaints allege that in the course of these proceedings Judge Chatigny abandoned neutrality and became an advocate on behalf of saving Ross from execution, exceeding his judicial authority and defying the rulings of higher courts.” (Report To The Judicial Council Of The Second Circuit, “Investigate Allegations of Judicial Misconduct,” 7/11/06)

• Chatigny Said That Ross “Never Should Have Been Convicted.” “But looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted.”  (U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut, “Telephone Conference Before: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny,” Chief U.S.D.J., (465 F.3d at 542) 1/28/05)
• Chatigny Said He Couldn’t “Live With” Sending Convicted Serial Killer Ross To His Death. “Ross has said he wants to die to end the anguish of his victims’ families. But U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny said evidence including accounts from another inmate and a retired deputy warden have indicated that deplorable death row conditions may have played a significant role in Ross’ decision. ‘I see this happening and I can’t live with it myself,’ Chatigny said in a telephone conference with Paulding, according to court records. ‘What you are doing is terribly, terribly wrong. No matter how well motivated you are, you have a client whose competence is in serious doubt and you don’t know what you’re talking about.’” (“Conn. Execution Of Serial Killer Postponed, The Associated Press, 1/29/05)
• Chatigny Said He Never Should Have Been Sentenced To Death Because “His Sexual Sadism, Which Was Found By Every Single Person Who Looked At Him, Is Clearly A Mitigating Factor.” (U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut, “Telephone Conference Before: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny,” Chief U.S.D.J., 1/28/05)
• Chatigny Believed Ross “May Be The Least Culpable, The Least, Of The People On Death Row.” “I suggest to you that Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row…..So when he says, I feel that I’m the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn’t treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he’s coming from.” (U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut, “Telephone Conference Before: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny,” Chief U.S.D.J., (465 F.3d at 542) 1/28/05)

COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST CHATIGNY FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BASED ON THREATENING LAWYERS IN ROSS CASE

In 2005, “Seven State Prosecutors Have Filed Complaints Against Federal Judge Robert N. Chatigny, Whose Stern Lecture And Threats To A Defense Lawyer Led To A Postponement Of Serial Killer Michael Ross’ Execution In January.” (“Complaints Filed Against Judge Who Derailed Ross’ Execution,” The Associated Press, 4/27/05)

Chatigny Threatened Ross’ Lawyer: “You Better Be Prepared To Deal With Me … I’ll Have Your Law License.” “So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life.  And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I’ll have your law license.” (U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut, “Telephone Conference Before: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny,” Chief U.S.D.J., (465 F.3d at 542) 1/28/05)

Chatigny’s “Improper Threatening Conduct … Interfered With Both Paulding’s Rights As Counsel And Ross’s Right To Choose His Counsel.” “[T]he Complaints allege that Judge Chatigny’s efforts to persuade Paulding to investigate and pursue the issue of Ross’s competence included improper threatening conduct and interfered with both Paulding’s rights as counsel and Ross’s right to choose his counsel.” (Report To The Judicial Council Of The Second Circuit, “Investigate Allegations of Judicial Misconduct,” 7/11/06)

DID CHATIGNY’S DECISIONS FAVOR SEX OFFENDER DEFENDANTS? THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY OVERTURNED ONE DECISION  

In 2000, Chatigny Noted A Sex Offender’s Service Helping “Children Cultivate An Interest In Music” In Giving Him “Minimum Allowed” Sentence For “Possession Of Child Pornography.” “‘It doesn’t seem this condition has resurfaced,’ he said. He stressed that [Philip A. Bunker] was being prosecuted only for possessing child pornography and that Bunker had for years helped children cultivate an interest in music. Judge Robert N. Chatigny did note Bunker’s long history of public service but rebuked him for his crime. He sentenced Bunker to 15 months in prison and a $4,000 fine for possession of child pornography. The sentence was the minimum allowed under federal sentencing guidelines. Bunker could have faced up to 21 months in prison.” (Lisa Goldberg, “Retired Teacher Gets 15 Months Child Pornography Case Ends,” The Hartford Courant, 7/15/00)

In 2001, Chatigny Struck Down Connecticut’s “Online Sex-Offender Registry,” Claiming It “Violated The Rights” Of Some Sex-Offenders. “A federal judge’s ruling overturning part of the state’s new law establishing an online sex-offender registry prompted lawmakers yesterday to offer amendments to the law. On Monday, Judge Robert Chatigny of Federal District Court ruled that the registry violated the rights of some ‘nondangerous registrants’ because they had no way to appeal. The speaker of the House, Moira K. Lyons, a Democrat, proposed an amendment to allow registrants to petition a judge to be removed from the list. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he would appeal the ruling.” (Paul Zielbauer, “Hartford: Offender Law To Be Amended,” The New York Times, 4/5/01)

The Supreme Court, In A Unanimous Opinion, Reversed Chatigny’s Decision. “We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticut’s sex offender registry … We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme.” (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), U.S. Supreme Court, 3/5/03)