State of Connecticut v. Eddie A. Perez.

Summary

The court affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment reversing the defendant's convictions because the trial court improperly refused to sever two unrelated criminal cases after the defendant made a timely and compelling showing that he needed to testify in the bribery case but remain silent in the extortion case. The defendant's proposed testimony could have meaningfully rebutted the state's bribery evidence, while the cost to judicial economy of severance was limited because the extortion case had not yet been tried. The dissent would have deferred to the trial court's discretion and upheld the denial of severance.