State of Connecticut v. Kyle Damato-Kushel — Espinosa, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the victim's rights amendment did not entitle the alleged victim's attorney to attend informal, in-chambers plea discussions, but rejects the majority's rationale. It would resolve the matter from the amendment's plain text, which grants a personal attendance right to the victim and does not extend that right to counsel, and would additionally conclude that the informal discussions were not formal disposition conferences. The concurrence therefore agrees with the result while disagreeing with the majority's analysis.