Prosecutor files response to Dabate's request for new trial

Aug. 12—The prosecutor who successfully led the trial against Richard Dabate on charges of murder has filed documents in court opposing the defense's attempts to gain a new trial or an acquittal.

In June, Dabate's lawyers filed motions arguing that because of errors made by the court, and improper conduct by the prosecutor, Dabate didn't receive a fair trial, and he should be allowed a new one.

The lawyers also filed a motion for an acquittal on the charges, under the premise that the prosecutor didn't present adequate evidence to obtain a conviction.

Dabate, 46, was convicted in May of murdering his wife Connie Dabate in their Ellington home on Dec. 23, 2015.

In a response filed Tuesday, prosecutor Matthew Gedansky rebutted defense lawyer Trent LaLima's arguments.

"In the present case, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any error at trial, much less a materially injurious error or an error of a constitutional magnitude. Rather, the defendant simply attempts to re-litigate rulings the court made through the course of the trial," Gedansky wrote.

The defense's motion for a new trial specifically targeted three decisions by the court that it said was incorrect.

One targeted the court's decision to allow the majority of an interview Dabate had with state police the day his wife was killed. Dabate's lawyer has argued that Dabate was in custody, but wasn't read his Miranda rights as required.

That argument fails for two reasons, Gedansky wrote this week.

"First, the defendant's claim that he could not leave the hospital room is devoid of any factual support," Gedansky responded.

In addition, Gedansky said that even if Dabate's movements were constrained, that alone doesn't determine whether a defendant is in custody.

"Dabate was interviewed by two plain clothes detectives who never displayed their firearms, did not threaten or intimidate him in any way, left him alone in the hospital room on several occasions, and told him multiple times that he was not under arrest and was free to leave," Gedansky wrote.

Dabate's lawyers had also targeted the court's decision to allow evidence from Connie Dabate's Fitbit device into the trial, and contested the device's ability to track step counts and timestamps to prove when a homicide occurred.

That argument is unpersuasive, because it deals with the weight of the evidence to the jury, rather than its admissibility, Gedansky wrote.

LaLima had further argued that his client deserves a new trial because Gedansky asked improper questions and made improper statements during his cross-examination of Dabate and his closing arguments.

"These arguments fail to recognize that the court sustained the defendant's objections to all of these questions and the jury was therefore never exposed to the objectionable evidence," wrote Gedansky.

"It is well-settled that, simply because a question may be objectionable as an evidentiary matter, asking the question does not constitute prosecutorial impropriety," he wrote.

Gedansky further defended two statements he made during his closing arguments, saying neither was improper.

In one statement, Gedansky told the jury that "the defendant wants you to speculate and guess and be gullible and leave your common sense outside the courthouse."

LaLima argued that the comment would have turned the jury against Dabate for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case.

"The comments carried no such implication," Gedansky's response states.

"The defendant's argument about what is 'implied' by these comments is based on the worst possible meaning that could be ascribed to the comments," he wrote.

Gedansky added that the alleged improprieties were infrequent and not severe, and the court took adequate measures in each situation.

"In light of the relevant factors, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any alleged improprieties in this case were so severe as to deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial," Gedansky said.

For breaking news and happenings in North Central Connecticut, follow Matthew Knox on Twitter: @MatthewPKnoxJI, and Facebook: Matthew P. Knox JI.