Lawmakers Decry Plea Deal In Milford Assault Case

State Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) and state Reps. Kim Rose (D-Milford), Kathy Kennedy (R-Milford) and Charles Ferraro (R-Milford) sent a letter to the office of the Milford State’s Attorney Dec. 13 expressing their concerns about a controversial plea deal in the case of a violent assault of a Milford woman. In the letter, the legislators lay out several disagreements with the court’s handling of this case, specifically the capped sentence for the crime committed.

On March 9, Lori Wierzbicki of Milford was violently attacked. Her attacker was originally charged with assault in the first degree, disorderly conduct, tampering with evidence and strangulation.

In the letter, the legislators express their concerns about, and opposition to, the plea deal. The offer is for the attacker to serve eight years, suspended after two years, with three years’ probation as a cap. The floor of the agreement could be a fully suspended sentence.

The lawmakers go on to explain in the letter that “this capped sentence, with the possibility of the assailant walking free on the very day of the sentencing hearing, does not reflect the values of this community. Moreover, it may serve to further victimize the innocent victim of a horrific crime.”

They point out in their letter that “the plea agreement seems to have been proposed by the judge, at a judicial pre-trial. The plea offer seems to have occurred on the same day it was entered on the record, October 30. The judicial website indicates this was the 10th time the case appeared on the court’s docket.” The legislators express concern over “why the plea had to be accepted with such urgency, without affording the victim the opportunity to speak on the record – and personally express what were apparently going to be her strong objections – before the plea was offered and accepted.”

They also note that, due to the capped sentence, “It appears likely that the victim is actually being given no meaningful opportunity to affect the sentence at the January 8th hearing. Because your office agreed to a capped plea agreement, it appears the sentence can only go down, to being fully suspended as of January 8 with the attacker possibly going free that very day.” In the letter, they say they “fail to understand why the plea went forward on October 30 without giving the victim her right to appear at a later date, on the record, before the plea was formally offered, accepted and entered.”

The legislators state, “Unacceptably, the judge’s claim to ‘hear from the complainant victim’ would seem ultimately to ring hollow if there exists no way the victim’s narration of her feelings and fear and suffering, no matter how eloquent, poignant, sad, angry or forgiving, can have the effect of eliminating the cap on the agreed sentence.”

They close by urging the Milford’s State’s Attorney to, take whatever actions are necessary and possible to prevent what they call an “unjust outcome to a horrifically violent, and confessed to, assault that has been perpetrated on a vulnerable member of our community.”

, , , ,