State of Connecticut v. Sushil Gupta — Rogers, J., dissenting

Summary

The dissent would conclude that the trial court acted within its broad discretion by jointly trying the charges involving three victims because the alleged misconduct was sufficiently similar and the jury was adequately instructed to consider each case separately. It further would conclude that excluding the medical-examination videotapes was erroneous but harmless because the evidence was cumulative and the proof that the conduct was not medically legitimate was overwhelming. The dissent therefore would reverse the Appellate Court and remand with direction to affirm the convictions. Judge Palmer, concurring, agreed that joinder was improper but relied on the difference between the defendants plausible medical-legitimacy defense in two cases and the absence of that defense in the third, and also would have found exclusion of the medical-treatise excerpts erroneous.