The Connecticut Appellate Court has opened the door for a new trial in the case involving former Cramer & Anderson LLP partner Robert L. Fisher Jr., who was originally convicted of first-degree manslaughter. The decision comes after it was revealed that the judge overseeing his case applied for a position with the state prosecutor’s office during the trial, which called into question the impartiality standard set under rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In the June 2021 incident, Fisher shot and killed Matthew Bromley in the parking lot of his law firm, arguing self-defense against an unprovoked attack. The prosecution, however, claimed that Fisher could have retreated safely and had re-engaged Bromley. Fisher was sentenced to two and a half years in prison followed by probation, with his law license suspended for five and a half years. The appellate court’s decision was based on the judge’s undisclosed job application with the Division of Criminal Justice, a role investigating use of force by police officers, as seen in reports.
Fisher’s attorney, William A. Conti, expressed satisfaction with the appeal’s outcome, maintaining that Fisher acted in self-defense and praising the appellate court’s decision. The appellate panel emphasized the appearance of impartiality over any claims of actual bias against Judge Eliot D. Prescott, who had been appointed to the role. This maintains the integrity of judicial impartiality as a cornerstone of justice, notwithstanding the state’s argument that Judge Prescott’s failure to disclose did not constitute a waiver by Fisher.
The appellate court did not consider Fisher’s additional arguments, such as the allegedly improper comments by the State’s Attorney about the victim’s socioeconomic status. The state’s attorney, David R. Shannon, conveyed that the ruling did not affect the jury’s decision on guilt, and the office may appeal to the state Supreme Court if necessary. According to local reports, the case demonstrates the significant impact that judicial conduct can have on trial outcomes, reiterating the necessity for transparency and fairness.