Background
Robert L. Fisher was convicted by a jury of first-degree manslaughter for fatally shooting Matthew Bromley during a parking-lot confrontation. Fisher, who admitted firing the shot, maintained that he acted in self-defense after Bromley attacked him, threatened to kill him, and attempted to seize his gun. The trial court sentenced Fisher to seven years of incarceration, suspended after two and one-half years, followed by three years of probation.
While presiding over Fisher’s March 2025 trial, Judge Prescott had a pending application to become Connecticut’s Inspector General, a Deputy Chief State’s Attorney position within the Division of Criminal Justice. The Criminal Justice Commission appointed him after the verdict but before sentencing. Fisher later sought a new trial, arguing that the undisclosed application created an appearance that the judge lacked impartiality because the Division of Criminal Justice also encompassed the state’s attorney’s office prosecuting him. The trial court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. It held that Judge Prescott’s pending application for a supervisory prosecutorial position within the same overarching agency that prosecuted Fisher created an appearance of partiality under rule 2.11 of the Connecticut Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge therefore should have disqualified himself or disclosed the application before trial and obtained the parties’ waiver.
The court rejected the state’s waiver and timeliness arguments. Fisher did not know about the prospective employment during trial, and his later consent to Judge Prescott’s handling of postverdict motions and sentencing did not waive a challenge to the judge’s earlier participation at trial. Even under the harmless-error-type analysis urged by the state, reversal was warranted because denying relief could encourage similar problems in future cases and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The court emphasized that it found no actual bias and did not question Judge Prescott’s ability or reputation. Its ruling rested on the distinct requirement that judges must both be impartial and appear impartial.
Key Takeaways
- A judge’s pursuit of employment as a prosecutor within the same overarching agency prosecuting a pending criminal case can create a disqualifying appearance of partiality.
- When such circumstances exist, the judge must disqualify himself or disclose them before proceeding and obtain an informed waiver from the parties.
- A defendant’s consent to a judge’s postverdict involvement does not necessarily waive an appearance-of-partiality challenge to the judge’s earlier conduct of the trial.
Why It Matters
The decision applies judicial-disqualification rules to judges seeking future employment and makes clear that formal separation between offices within a prosecutorial agency may not eliminate the appearance problem. Courts must assess how a reasonable observer would view the broader institutional relationship.
The ruling also underscores that an appearance-of-partiality violation may require a new trial without proof of actual bias, particularly when relief is necessary to deter similar conduct and preserve public confidence in judicial neutrality.