A man serving a 10-year prison sentence for robbing $4,700 from a Seymour bank is asking for a new trial.
The man, Thomas “Country” Steele, 57, and his lawyer argue in court documents that a judge should have barred part of a Seymour detective’s testimony during his 2014 trial.
State prosecutors have until Nov. 11 to file a response in court.
Background
The Webster Bank at 15 New Haven Road was robbed Feb. 16, 2013.
Seymour police charged Steele with the crime four months later. Detectives traced a green Cadillac allegedly used in the heist first to a friend of Steele’s, then to Steele himself.
Police also found evidence linking Steele to the heist at motels he had stayed at after the bank robbery.
Click here for a previous story.
A jury found Steele guilty of first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit third-degree larceny after a four-day trial in June 2014.
Judge Denise Markle sentenced Steele to 10 years in prison.
Appeal
Steele filed an appeal June 10.
A 46-page brief written by Maria Morse, a certified legal intern from Quinnipiac University School of Law, asks the state’s appellate court to reverse his convictions and order a new trial on the conspiracy to commit robbery charge. Morse also asks the judge to dismiss the other charges.
In the brief, Morse argues Steele’s convictions on the conspiracy charges violate the Fifth Amendment constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
One of the convictions should therefore be set aside.
Morse goes on to argue that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict Steele of first-degree robbery.
What Makes An Expert?
The brief says Judge Markle should not have allowed Seymour Detective Steve Ditria to testify about which cell phone towers Steele was allegedly nearest at various times before, during, and after the stick-up.
Ditria — the last witness who testified during the trial — said that he subpoenaed Steele’s cell phone records and then learned how to interpret them by speaking over the phone with an unidentified person from Sprint, Steele’s cell phone provider.
The lawyer representing Steele during the trial, Daniel Ford, objected to Ditria’s testimony regarding Steele’s cell phone, saying the detective wasn’t an expert in the field of radio frequencies or cell phone technology.
Judge Markle should have sustained that objection, Morse wrote.
“The interpretation of these records required an expert, and Ditria lacked the qualifications to interpret them,” the brief says. “Rather, he was simply parroting the responses he received from an unnamed person he spoke with at Sprint, who was not called as a witness.”
That violated evidence rules as well as Steele’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, Morse argues.
“The trial court’s rulings therefore violated not only the Code of Evidence provisions governing expert testimony; they also deprived the defendant of his right to confront and cross-examine a critical witness against him,” the brief goes on. “The defendant is entitled to a new trial.”
