1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : Michael B. Ross : No. 3:05CV00116(RNC) By His Next Friend : Gerard A. Smyth, : Gerard A. Smyth, Off, : Chief Public Defender, : Office of Chief Public Defender,: Petitioner : : v. : : Theresa C. Lantz, Comm, CT DOC, : Wayne C. Choinski, Warden, : Northern Correctional Institute : David N. Strange, Warden, : Osborn Correctional Institute, : Respondents : HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : Dan Ross : No. 3:05CV00130(RNC) Plaintiff : : v. : : M. Jodi Rell, : Theresa C. Lantz, : David N. Strange, : Christopher L. Morano, : Richard Blumenthal : Defendants : HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT : JANUARY 28, 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE: HON. ROBERT N. CHATIGNY, CHIEF U.S.D.J. Darlene A. Warner, RDR-CRR Official Court Reporter 2 APPEARANCES: FOR DAN ROSS: KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 BY: ANTONIO PONVERT, III, ESQ. JAMES NUGENT, ESQUIRE 236 Boston Post Road Orange, Connecticut 06477 FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS: SANTOS & SEELEY 51 Russ Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 BY: HUBERT J. SANTOS, ESQ. HOPE SEELEY, ESQ. STATE OF CONNECTICUT Office of the Chief Public Defender 1 Hartford Square West Suite 201 BY: PATRICK J. CULLIGAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR MICHAEL ROSS: FAZZANO, TOMASIEWICZ & PAULDING 400 Hebron Avenue Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 BY: T.R. PAULDING, ESQ. 3 FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: STATE OF CONNECTICUT Attorney General's Office 110 Sherman Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06105 BY: TERRENCE M. O'NEILL, AAG STATE OF CONNECTICUT Chief State Attorney's Office 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 BY: MICHAEL E. O'HARE, ASA STATE OF CONNECTICUT Attorney General's Office 55 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06141 BY: SUSAN QUINN COBB, AAG 4 3:00 P.M. THE COURT: Hello. I want to ask you to please identify yourselves so we know who is on the line. MS. SEELEY: Hope Seeley and Hubert Santos. MR. CULLIGAN: Patrick Culligan for the Chief Public Defender as well. MR. PAULDING: T.R. Paulding for Michael Ross. MR. O'HARE: Michael O'Hare for the Chief State's Attorney's Office. MR. O'NEILL: Terrence O'Neill for the defendants in the civil matter. MS. COBB: And Susan Quinn Cobb for the defendants in the civil matter. MR. NUGENT: Jim Nugent, Your Honor. MR. PONVERT: Antonio Ponvert is on also, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I have received a copy of a letter that Mr. Santos has sent by fax today to Mr. Morano and Mr. O'Hare. Mr. O'Hare, have you received it? MR. O'HARE: Yes, I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Paulding, you were not a participant in our conference call last night when we spoke about the Lopez letter, but I understand that 5 you've seen the letter? MR. PAULDING: I have, Your Honor. I was faxed a copy and I took a look at it today, and I've also gone over it with Michael Ross. THE COURT: Okay. This is the letter that the Court of Appeals refers to as troubling. And it certainly seems troubling on its face. And before I call it a day, I wanted to get everybody together. I don't know what's going to come of Mr. Santos's letter, but I want to be clear on the record where we are so that there can be no misunderstandings, there can be no lack of understanding. And Mr. Paulding, I'm going to start with you. I want to speak with you, as Mr. Ross's counsel. MR. PAULDING: Okay. THE COURT: And also as an officer of this court. I want to be frank about the role that you are playing in this situation. Mr. Ross hired you to help him bring about his own execution. You accepted the engagement and you are well on your way to helping him achieve his stated objective. If you succeed, you will have been a substantial factor in bringing it about. I trust you of all people are clear on that. The role you have played has made all the 6 difference. You have assured the courts, Judge Clifford, not least among them, and the public, and indeed the state officials who are on this phone or at least the people these lawyers represent that Ross's decision is a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision. And that if you had the slightest qualms about it, you would be the first one to step up. You would act immediately. You would be sure that we would know. And everybody has relied very heavily on you. In fact, the defendants in these cases have pointed to you and they have said, nobody else has a right to be heard because you represent Mr. Ross and you are assuring us that he is a-okay and those other people are simply, you know, meddling in a place where they do not belong. So you are the man. Have you spoken to Mr. Lopez? MR. PAULDING: Mr. Lopez? THE COURT: The author of that letter. MR. PAULDING: No. I have not personally -- Mr. Lopez I think is in Cheshire. So no, I haven't spoken to Mr. Lopez. THE COURT: As the key player here, do you think you have an obligation to go see Mr. Lopez, the man who says he believes your client has been brainwashed? MR. PAULDING: With all due respect, I don't 7 have -- I have a -- forget the law for a minute, morally and all the other things you're referring to, I don't think it's necessary to speak to Mr. Lopez. THE COURT: How about Dr. Norko? Have you gone back to Dr. Norko with Mr. Lopez's letter and asked him if it affects his opinion of the situation? MR. PAULDING: No, I have not gone back to Dr. Norko. I'm actually spending a lot of time here with Michael. If you'd like me to try to get ahold of Dr. Norko -- THE COURT: I would. I believe that as an officer of the court who is facilitating the execution of his client, I as the chief judge of the court have to be sure that you are doing everything that one should do ethically in this situation. And I believe that includes -- and my opinion may be wrong -- but if I were you, before I continued to play this decisive role, I would want to interview Mr. Lopez myself. I would not take somebody else's word for it. I would want to eyeball Mr. Lopez myself. I would certainly want to speak to Dr. Norko. I probably would like him to be with me, in fact, if that were possible, so he could talk to Mr. Lopez himself. I would like Dr. Norko to not only read Lopez's letter, but I would ask Dr. Norko, What is the story? 8 Let's suppose there is some truth to this, how does that factor into your opinion on which I am relying, the opinion on which Judge Clifford relied and thus the State Supreme Court and all the other state officials and the public? What impact does it have on your opinion? And by the way, while we're at it, since you testified in front of Judge Clifford, there have been a number of things that have come to my attention that I didn't know about then. And people say that it should undermine my confidence in your opinion. I would like you to give me an explanation as to why these things do not in fact affect your opinion. But, you know, what? I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would ask him: Do they affect your opinion? Here's Lopez's letter; here's the Ross writings that you didn't have before; and so forth. Because Dr. Norko, you have to understand, I, Attorney Paulding, hold this man's life in my hands. And I want to be sure that I'm not making the worst mistake of my life. So I put it to you as an officer of the court and as the chief judge of the court, what do you think about that, Mr. Paulding? MR. PAULDING: Well, I think that you're -- I really think that the suggestions you're making are well-founded. I will tell you, I do have somewhat of a 9 difference of opinion, which is not necessarily going to make me not do what you're suggesting, but I do have a difference of opinion on whether or not the whole notion of whether the conditions at Northern -- it's -- I don't want to be long-winded, but this is our opportunity to talk so, number one, the conditions at Northern and the death row syndrome phenomenon and all those issues, whether those have somehow created in Michael Ross, these feelings of despair -- (Telephone interruption). THE COURT: Mr. Paulding, I'm very sorry, but there's something going on that is interrupting the line. We can't hear you. It's -- it sounds like a clicking noise. And I don't know if anybody can -- you hear that? MR. SANTOS: I hear that, Judge, I hear that. THE COURT: It makes it difficult for Darlene to hear what you're saying and take it down. MR. PAULDING: I don't know, I'm sitting at a phone up here at Osborn right now, and unfortunately from my end, I hear everything everybody's saying perfectly so -- THE COURT: Okay. We may need to replace the call. But -- and I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Paulding, but -- MS. SEELEY: May I just interrupt? 10 THE COURT: Yeah. MS. SEELEY: T.R., can you take down the call-in number and call -- you and I will hang up and call back in because you're conferenced in through my line and that may be the problem. MR. PAULDING: Sure. I'll do that. MS. SEELEY: 1-888-392-9904. And the pass code to get onto the call, 7315863 and followed by the pound sign. MR. PAULDING: Okay. So I go 7315863 and then the pound sign? MS. SEELEY: Correct, and that will get you on the call. Judge, both of us are going to hang up right now and call back in. THE COURT: We'll wait. (Pause) MS. SEELEY: Judge, Hope Seeley back on. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SEELEY: Mr. Paulding should be back on shortly. THE COURT: Hello. MS. SEELEY: It will beep when he comes on. THE COURT: Okay. (Pause) 11 THE COURT: Mr. Paulding? MR. PAULDING: Yes. I'm back on? THE COURT: Yes, you are. MR. PAULDING: Is that a little bit better or -- THE COURT: Much better. I can hear you very clearly. MR. PAULDING: Great. Is Hope back on too? MS. SEELEY: I'm here, thanks. MR. PAULDING: Going back to where we were on this. Number one, I'll try and address the whole situation, on the issue of whether or not he is capable of voluntarily making this decision or this choice, I view that -- and again this is -- we're just talking here -- I view that as something that is separate and distinct from whether or not a person is competent to make that choice. That being said, let me just tell you what I've addressed on that specific issue and then I'll move over to the doctors and Mr. Lopez. On the issue of the coercive nature of Northern and those types of things and their effect that they may have had on Mr. Ross, for most of the time that Michael Ross was housed at Northern Correctional -- and, Judge, I know that you've been up there so you know what kind of a 12 place it is. THE COURT: Yes. MR. PAULDING: When death row was moved from Osborn to Northern, as you know, Northern was instituted for basically jerks or troublemakers within our correction system who needed to be more severely disciplined and had to have much more strict rules and regulations. THE COURT: The worst of the worst. MR. PAULDING: The worst of the worst. That was not the situation with the death row inmates. In fact, for many, many years, the death row inmates while at Northern had far more privileges than any other inmate in the institution, and that included Ross. And those were such things as, you know, presents at Christmas time, much more time out of the cells. He did have the ability to interact and make friendships. And as is reflected in the record, he did such things as starting a law library, et cetera, et cetera. That changed within the last two to three years and I believe -- I don't know exactly why -- it had something to do with Daniel Webb and an escape attempt or at least that's what's being said -- but whatever the cause was, in the last two to three years, the death row inmates at Northern were then I think given the same type of strict structure that every other inmate had or pretty 13 much the same thing. So it has now for the last two to three years been more of a, you know, 22 or a 23 hour lockdown. And certainly no one would ever want to have to live in that place. That being said, his -- that was his existence until October of this year. In October of this year, he's back in what used to be the old death row wing at Osborn where he has his own cell; he has a television; he has other types of things, privileges, but there's nobody else around him in Osborn. He's actually totally by himself. So he doesn't have other prisoners yelling and screaming at him. Which he has indicated that he actually prefers, at least at this stage. But on the issue of has he somehow been coerced, I have to go back, at least in one sense, to the very first discussions that he and I were having in 1995. And the way that -- when I say why I think I'm so strong in thinking that he's competent, a lot of that, it's difficult for me to sometimes put into words, because a lot of it is sometimes intuitive based upon not just what he says but body language, when the emotions go up or down, how he expresses things, intonations of his vocally when he's speaking, reactions to particular things. And that's why I have said -- and I know that the evidence that's been shown to you would show -- 14 attempt to show some inconsistency. And believe me, I'm well aware of all that. I'm well aware of his various statements. But what it has said to me over time is that when he professes that the primary motivation for what he's doing is the concern for the victims' families, I believe that he's telling the truth. I've seen that in so many different ways. And we have discussed so many different things that he could do. He is so well aware of them. Just as an aside for example, when we first started talking about six or eight months ago, he was not -- he's always been opposed to the habeas corpuses and the petition for writ of cert, but he was not opposed to the Board of Pardons -- in the beginning when we were first talking, the one thing that he was considering was the Board of Pardons commutation type process. That was actually something that he was thinking about. But again Your Honor I can tell you why. It's because in the -- number one, in the beginning, he thought it was mandatory. There was a proposal last year that that was going to be a mandatory thing, and then I guess that proposed regulation was not passed. So in the beginning he thought he had to have some commutation hearing. 15 Even after he learned that it was not mandatory, he still was considering it at first. And again I can tell you that -- obviously -- maybe -- I don't know whether I don't see the whole Michael Ross, but I can tell you I've seen an awful lot of him. THE COURT: Mr. Paulding, you impress me as a sincere, kind, compassionate person. And I won't try to be even more descriptive than that. I feel strongly that you're way out on a limb, and I want to be sure that I discharge my responsibilities as the chief judge of the court dealing with you as an officer of this court in making sure that you don't commit a very grave error. I began this by underscoring the central importance of your role to date and that is going to continue. I believe Mr. Ross is effectively boxed in now. He would be hard-pressed to change his mind. Even if he changed his mind, he would be hard-pressed to admit it. He doesn't want to go back to Northern and be the subject of ridicule for somebody who had backed out at the end. And I want to come back to that in a second. But my point here is for now, the only hope he has, in my opinion, at this point lies with the people on this conference. You first and foremost. If this man is in fact making a knowing, 16 intelligent and voluntary decision, which as an adult, a healthy adult with autonomy is entitled to make, a decision that we are obliged to respect, then God love him. If that is not the case though, everybody on this call has some responsibility. But mostly you. Because we are relying heavily on you. I don't want to try to challenge you, but I have to. MR. PAULDING: Okay. THE COURT: You mentioned that you think Ross was transferred to Northern a couple or three years ago. MR. PAULDING: He was transferred there probably 15 years ago. Within the last 10 to 15 years. THE COURT: Right. I believe it was in the spring of 1995. And I believe that as a result of that his life changed very dramatically for the worst, and that was again April of 1995. So we're going back almost ten years. MR. PAULDING: Your Honor, I'm now losing the sound. I don't know if anybody can hear me. I'm hearing like a ticking noise. THE COURT: I'll try to call back in. Hold on. (Pause) THE COURT: Everybody is still there? MR. SANTOS: Your Honor, excuse me, Hubert 17 Santos. MR. O'NEILL: Terrence O'Neill. MR. CULLIGAN: Patrick Culligan. MR. O'HARE: Michael O'Hare. MR. PONVERT: Antonio Ponvert. MS. SEELEY: Hope Seeley. MR. PAULDING: And T.R. Paulding. MR. NUGENT: Jim Nugent. THE COURT: Okay. So he spent the better part of ten years in those conditions. And I toured the place with an eye toward trying to grasp what its effect would be on the individual inmate. And I found it to be a very striking experience, one that I remember vividly years later. There is abundant literature, some of which I've read, not half of which, but a fair amount of which I have read, and that gives great weight to the notion that a person who is in that setting can lose his ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary choice. In fact, most European countries -- I want to be careful to be as accurate as I can -- I believe most European countries have recognized that to the point where their courts will not permit extradition of people from their countries to this country if the person's going to wind up in that setting. 18 So this is not a flight of fancy on the part of Dr. Grassian. This is a well-recognized phenomenon, one that has reached the point in those places that I just described. I take it that you are no more of an expert on that than I am, and I would not feel comfortable personally sizing up Mr. Ross myself with that in mind. And the fact that Dr. Norko is admittedly ignorant of it would cause me a great sense of unease. I'm speaking very frankly with you here, Mr. Paulding. It would cause me tremendous unease if I were in your position, a position that is unique. I would need to have an expert who knows why the courts of Europe will not extradite people to places like Northern. Look at Mr. Ross and ask whether in fact he is Exhibit A. He looks rational, he sounds rational, but in fact he's at the end of his rope. Beyond that, without meaning to cast aspersions, when I toured Northern -- and Jim Nugent will remember this, because he tried the case, and Ann Lynch will remember this also -- there were allegations about how the staff at Northern had gone into Webb's cell in order to alter the situation before I toured it. And it had to do with heat and cold and vents and this. And I never got into it in depth, but I believed then and I believe now 19 that the allegation was well-founded. I believed, as I looked those people in the eye, that there was a very good chance they had undertaken to move things around in order to strengthen the case for the department in order to weaken the claim of Mr. Webb. Is that surprising? Is that shocking? No. I mean, we know people will do things that maybe aren't exactly right if in their scheme of values they think, well, the end justifies the means. I have had police officers take the witness stand and commit blatant perjury to the point where it was baffling to me that they could think I was that stupid. But it was obvious that they had no qualms about it. So is it possible that somebody who works at Northern could in fact be influenced by the kind of mindset that one might find at a place like Northern? Maybe. You know, that would cause me concern, reasonable concern. MR. SANTOS: Your Honor, this is Hubert Santos. I apologize for interrupting. But in the last 24 hours, I have made certain phone calls, and one of the persons I've talked to was the former deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections who in fact from '93 to '95 was in charge of the death row inmates and knows Michael Ross quite well. 20 And this morning I conferred with him again. And in front of Attorney Seeley, on her desk, I'm not in the state, is a draft affidavit that he is willing to sign. And his conclusion based upon his contact -- this is a 29-year employee of the Department of Corrections who started as a prison guard and retired in April 2nd, 2003 as deputy commissioner. And I'm sure Mr. O'Neill knows him quite well. And in his opinion, based upon what he observed with Ross, his interactions with Ross -- he helped Ross set up the library at Northern -- his regular contact with Ross, his observations, the prison at Northern, which he describes as living in either a submarine or a cave, all of which are in the draft affidavit, his conclusion is that the conditions at Northern were a substantial factor in Ross's decision to seek to waive his rights to further litigation and to elect to be executed. Now, this has been all typed, it's all prepared and we were waiting for certain -- and I'm speaking as an officer of the court, because as Your Honor knows, I represent the chief Public Defender's Office who are under -- there are various other issues that I can't really discuss because of the privilege. But as an officer of the court, Mr. -- and I'll tell you who the gentleman is because what I did do after I spoke to him, I called Mr. Kane, the State's Attorney in New London, and 21 asked him to call him and speak with this gentleman, which he did do. And this gentleman is a former deputy commissioner of programs at DOC. His name is John Tokarz, and I'm sure Mr. O'Neill knows who I'm talking about. And he is very much troubled by what's going on here, very much troubled. The problem of course is we're looking for a vehicle by which to raise these issues and we're constrained by various and sundry things, including the five to four ruling of the Supreme Court yesterday. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Santos, I very much appreciate your telling me that, although it makes my blood pressure climb even higher, because obviously now it's not just inmate Lopez, but a person who would be speaking in a manner that would create admissions. Let me go on, and I'm not going to keep everybody much longer. But Mr. Paulding, I need to keep the focus on you. MR. PAULDING: Uh-huh. THE COURT: I believe that what we see is more than the critical amount of information that I believe a responsible state official would need in order to feel compelled to act. But I'm not going to try to lay that on them anymore. I tried to do that yesterday. I'm laying 22 it on you now. The way I see it, Ross is boxed in. He has said he's not going to go back like Cobb did and put up with the ridicule about having backed down. But it's more than that, it's more than than that for this man. Let's look at Michael Ross in the best possible light. I am about to draw a picture of him based on the record I've seen. I didn't follow the criminal case as it went on all those years. I've only just gotten to know about these matters. So I bring a fresh eye to it. But looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, 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. Again we're looking at a record in a light most favorable to him. This is a man who, before he went off to Cornell, was as far as I know okay. He's at Cornell, he has this classmate, this petite Asian girl who is sweet and he likes her and he winds up killing her because he has this affliction, this terrible disease. And having gratified this awful, uncontrollable, impulse to sexually brutalize this person he liked and then kill her, he 23 realizes that he has done evil and he stands on the bridge and is going to kill himself before he does it again. But he doesn't jump. And today, he looks back at those days and he hates himself because he didn't jump. He was a coward. He was like Cobb backing out. So for Michael Ross to be able to back out now, forget it. The only way Michaels Ross is going to get his life back is if somebody like you, and maybe only you, says, We realize you're no longer in a position to change your mind. You're like the guy standing on the bridge back at the gorge in Ithaca, and you're not going to make the same mistake, the one you made back then because you went on and took seven innocent lives, and you know that you are responsible. You know you had sexual sadism. You know that you became a monster because of it. And you have now found a way to end this. And there's no turning back. I suggest to you that Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row. Michael Ross, by what I see in the record, suffered from these intolerable obsessional bouts with sexual sadism, which were not relieved until he began that regimen of chemical castration, whereupon they were relieved. And then when it was taken away from him, they came back. And it was only when he got the alternative 24 regimen that he found relief again. He explains that the only people in the system who showed him any kindness were two women. The only ones who didn't treat him like a monster were these two women, yet in the grip of this disease he would lie awake all night thinking about sexually brutalizing them and killing them. So is he a sick man? Boy, oh, boy. 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. Going beyond that, we have a guy who, having gotten beyond the sexual sadism, is nevertheless trapped in this environment at Northern where you have no human contact to speak of, you're locked up in a seven by twelve foot cell where you get to ruminate about all these things that you did, you get to think about how the world hates you, despises you. And is it any wonder that the guy might decide, given his mental illness, given everything he's been through, to go kill himself as he in fact tried to do three times? And we have evidence in the record that says, After my mandatory appeals, I'm going to do it. So I don't know how anybody in your position honestly, Mr. Paulding, I do not know how anybody in your 25 position could be accepting of this responsibility to proceed in the face of this record to be the proximate cause of this man's death. I put it to you, Mr. Paulding. I think you are way out on a limb. And I appeal to you. You need to see what you're doing. When I was in practice as a litigator, my investigation -- I don't mean to pat myself on the back but -- my investigation in a typical run-of-the-mill injury case would be more comprehensive than your investigation of this. I don't mean to offend you, but it's the truth. I mean, you haven't taken Lopez's letter to Norko. You haven't sat Norko down and you haven't put the documents about this disorder in front of him and said, Read these, let's talk about it. Are you sure? We have this fellow Grassian, a nationally recognized expert telling us that Ross can convince anybody because he's that desperate to kill himself. And you're going to take it upon yourself to say Grassian's wrong? I know better? A guy who knows very little about this syndrome, and I'm relying on a psychiatrist Norko who admits he doesn't know anything? I mean, Mr. Paulding, what is going on? You point to his explanation and -- MR. PAULDING: Your Honor, if I can just -- I'll wait. 26 THE COURT: Yeah. You need to wait. You point to his explanation, as does the State, and it has superficial appeal. Given that you believe in him, given that you believe he is being sincere when he says he's motivated to avoid causing the victims' families further harm, you accept that. You say that's an honorable choice. That's sort of what I would do if I were in your place. Well, you know what? I believe, if I look at it in a light most favorable to him, that he is telling the truth, okay? That's his motivation. He doesn't want to hurt them anymore. He can't live with himself as it is. He also doesn't want to have another penalty hearing. I mean, if the best he gets is a setting aside of his death sentence so he gets to go back to the penalty hearing and see it all over again in their presence, does he want that? Absolutely not. If that is what he was facing as the only alternative to execution, you could say that makes sense. But we have the Callahan litigation. He doesn't have to cause any victim any pain. He doesn't have to do a thing. He can sit on his hands and sit mute and he may find not only that the death sentence is set aside, he may find the death penalty has been abolished. He may find that he gets the life sentence that he has repeatedly said he 27 would take in an instant if it was offered to him. He doesn't have to cause any victims' family member a second of pain to get the benefit of that Callahan litigation and whatever might happen at the General Assembly starting Monday unless you go forward and see to it on your watch under your counsel that he gets executed. That's the situation. Let's be very, very clear. That's the situation. Does his explanation make any sense at all if in fact he cannot cause these victims' families a moment's distress and get the benefit of the Callahan litigation, and who knows what happens at the General Assembly. His explanation makes no sense, no sense. Because it's not the inevitable alternative to execution that is causing victims' families pain. And if I were his lawyer, I'd be in his face telling him that. We're not in this profession to help people get killed. I'd be in his face saying, Listen, you idiot, this litigation may very well result in the life sentence that you have repeatedly said you would take in a wink and you're going to be dead Sunday. For what? Because you don't want to cause people any pain? You're not going to cause them any pain. Figure it out, you idiot. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. PAULDING: Yeah. 28 THE COURT: But instead you seem to be saying, He's perfectly rational. All of this is beside the point. I've got total confidence in him, there's no problem. Believe me, we can all be content that we have a perfectly rational man here going to his death with our taxpayers' dollars footing the bill because I'm telling you he's right there. And you don't know what you're talking about. And you're an officer of this court. And I see this happening and I can't live with it myself, which is why I'm on the phone right now. It's wrong. What you're doing is wrong. MR. PAULDING: All right. Well -- THE COURT: And I tell you that, Mr. Paulding, because it is true. 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. MR. PAULDING: All right, well -- THE COURT: If you had Grassian in here saying, Look, I've interviewed hundreds of these guys and this guy is absolutely competent. Yeah, he's been in that hell hole for ten years, but I'm telling you he's competent. He's never tried to kill himself. You know, he says -- he's got this reason that's inarguable. You can't debate it with him because it's there. It's plain. It's 29 compelling. There's no other argument. You have none of that. You have none of that. And it makes no sense. 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. MR. PAULDING: Okay. Well, Your Honor, that's a lot to -- THE COURT: And you can tell -- I told you the other day, you should go tell Mr. Ross that what we are doing is in his best interest. I doubt you did that. But if -- MR. PAULDING: I did, sir. THE COURT: Then you better make a clear record of it. You better have a court reporter there taking down the advice you're giving him, because believe me if -- you're going to need it. You're going to need it. Because I think now that the can of worms has been opened, it is not going to be closed. This is going to get to be very messy. People are going to want to know what the story 30 is at Northern and what went on with Michael Ross and who is this guy Lopez. And if Michael Ross is dead, oh, boy it's not going to be nice for anybody. Not for the courts, not for the State's Attorney, not for the Department of Correction, not for the people of our state. It's going to be horrendous. And you're the man. You are the man. So there you go. MR. PAULDING: Well, would you permit me a little bit of time to process this and -- THE COURT: Yes. You have between now and whenever to process it. But you've put yourself in a pretty bad place, Mr. Paulding. And again, I'm sorry for you, because you strike me as a very decent person. I think you're a kind-hearted, decent, gentle soul. But you know what? Often times those are the ones who wind up making the worst mistakes. So there you are. MR. PAULDING: I appreciate everything you're saying and I'm taking it with the utmost seriousness and I will -- I will have a response. I just don't think I can respond right at the moment. THE COURT: Well, you may -- I would urge you to tell your client what I have said. MR. PAULDING: I will. 31 THE COURT: And I would urge you to say, I think he's right. And I would urge you to say, Michael, I can bring you in off this limb that we're both out on. I can bring you in. I can say because of what has happened, because of what we've heard, because of this Lopez letter, because of this thing Hubert Santos told me about, man, I'm not ready to go. I don't want to be responsible anymore. In fact, I'm saying what you're doing is a mistake. You don't have to cause any victims' families any pain. All you got to do is go back and be quiet and maybe you'll get the life sentence that you say you would take tomorrow if it were offered to you. I cannot be a party to this anymore. And in fact, I object. I won't let you do it. And he'll say, Well, I can't come back off this limb. I'm like the kid back on the bridge at Cornell, I've got to jump. You say, I'm not letting you. I'm standing next to you on the bridge and I'm holding you and I'm preventing you from jumping and I'll take the heat for it and let's see what happens with the Callahan litigation let's see what happens as this thing unfolds. Meanwhile you will not be to blame for any upset to anybody. It's my fault. But I'm not going to stand by here and take it upon myself to watch you go to your death when all of 32 these questions have been raised. I cannot do it as an officer of the court. I cannot do it. That's what I would tell him. MR. PAULDING: Okay. MR. NUGENT: This is Jim Nugent. Also, Mr. Paulding, I think it's very important for you to understand that for Mr. Ross to be informing you that times have changed at Northern for the past two or three years is grossly inaccurate. The incident with Daniel Webb was more than six years ago. So he is either 100 percent off his time frame or more than that. It's either two years being six in reality or three years being six in reality, which leads me to believe that he is a very poor historian or he has an ability to mislead you for whatever reason. MR. PAULDING: I'll check into that too. That was something that I had actually not been told by him. I had actually been told by another source as to when that occurred. And I certainly take you at your word, Jim. MR. CULLIGAN: Your Honor, Patrick Culligan here for the Chief Public Defender. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. CULLIGAN: Your Honor, if we needed to reach you after 5:00, is there a way that that can be accomplished? 33 THE COURT: I'll be here. I'll be here. And if I'm not here, somebody will be here who knows how to get me. But I'm not going anywhere. MR. CULLIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: This is more important than whatever other plans I might have made. MR. PAULDING: Okay, Your Honor. MR. CULLIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going to sign off now. MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, Terrence O'Neill, may we once again ask for a transcript so that we can fully and accurately convey your remarks to our client? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. O'HARE: Your Honor, I'd also like to order a transcript. THE COURT: Okay. That's as good as done. Darlene will do that. MR. PONVERT: Antonio Ponvert. And Darlene, I know that you have limitations, but if at all possible to get me a transcript ASAP, I'd appreciate it very much, because my papers are due in the Supreme Court at 5:30 and if at all possible, I'd like to attach this transcript. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all. I'll be here. Keep me in informed, would you please. (Proceedings adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) 34 C E R T I F I C A T E In Re: Ross v. Rell/Ross v. Lantz I, Darlene A. Warner, RDR-CRR, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate transcription of my shorthand notes taken in the aforementioned matter to the best of my skill and ability. __________________________ DARLENE A. WARNER, RDR-CRR Official Court Reporter 450 Main Street, Room #223 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (860) 547-0580