Fitzgerald v. Flaherty, No. Cv93-0528651 (Aug. 14, 1996)
Opinion of the Court
The Judge, represented by the office of the Attorney General has moved to quash the subpoena claiming that his compliance and appearance at the deposition would disrupt and burden the judicial function and inappropriately interfere with the judicial decision making process.
Judges, in conducting a trial with all the attendant stresses and responsibilities should not have to anticipate being called in the future as a witness in a subsequent trial dealing with events in the first trial. In Gold v.Warden,
The record in this case contains many observations made by the Judge during the dissolution hearing bearing on the mental and emotional condition of the plaintiff. No useful purpose let alone a "compelling need" has been demonstrated to compel his testimony almost six years after the trial as to what his additional observations of the plaintiff may have been at that time. CT Page 5725
Motion to Quash Subpoena granted.
Jerry Wagner State Trial Referee
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.