Missionary Society of Connecticut v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, 272 Conn. 647 (2005) Supported the Congregationalists’ position seeking a temporary injunction staying the impending execution of Michael Ross. The Missionary Society claimed that it had standing and that the Board of Pardons ad hoc ruling which precluded all third parties from requesting a commutation hearing was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal was argued at an historic en banc hearing on Saturday, January 22, 2005. The trial court’s decision which dismissed the Society’s application for an order requiring the Board of Pardons to hold a commutation hearing was affirmed two days later on January 24, 2005. Michael Ross was executed on ___________, 2005. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert and Richard Emanuel.

In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 653 (2005)

In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 674 (2005)

In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 676 (2005)

Amicus CCDLA filed a Petition in Support of a Writ of Habeus Corpus filed by Dan Ross, the Father and next friend of Michael Ross. Michael Ross was a death row inmate who successfully sought to withdraw his pending Appeals and actively sought to be executed by the State of Connecticut. His Father, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Connecticut trial court seeking a stay of execution and a hearing on the inmate’s competence to waive further postconviction proceedings. The court dismissed the petition. His Father appealed. In the Appellate proceedings, The Supreme Court was asked to consider a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error Dan Ross, as father and next friend of Michael Ross, and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error office of the chief public defender of the state of Connecticut, as next friend of Michael B. Ross, challenging the orders of the habeas court, entered on January 3, 2005. The trial court had previously dismissed their respective petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that: (1) the habeas petitions submitted by the plaintiffs in error on behalf of Michael Ross were not legitimate filings; and (2) the plaintiffs in error did not have standing to file the petitions. The Supreme Court sustained the Trial Court.   Brief by Edward J. Gavin.