State of Connecticut v. Kyle Damato-Kushel

Summary

Justice Espinosa concurred in the result that the victim's rights amendment did not give the alleged victim's attorney a right to attend informal, in-chambers plea discussions. She would have resolved the claim directly from the amendment's plain language, which guarantees a victim personal attendance at proceedings the accused personally may attend, and would also have concluded that the in-chambers discussions were not formal disposition conferences. Justice Espinosa, concurring, disagreed with the majority's rationale because it assumed without analysis that the constitutional right extended to counsel and accepted the characterization of informal judicial pretrials as disposition conferences.