State Supreme Court to hear appeal from man convicted in Griswold triple murder
The state Supreme Court next week will hear an appeal of the conviction of Sergio Correa, the Hartford man sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the violent murders of three members of a Griswold family in 2017.
Correa's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Jennifer B. Smith, will argue that a warrantless seizure of Correa's cell phone by police was not justified under a legal term known as exigent circumstances, or exceptions to requirements for a warrant. The appeal also claims the search of the contents of the phone violated state and federal constitutions. Correa's appeal was rejected at the Superior Court level.
The Correa matter is among the 10 cases slated to be taken up by the state's high court beginning on March 3. Correa's appeal will be heard Wednesday at Yale Law School in New Haven as part of the court's On Circuit" program in which it holds arguments at colleges and law schools. Another appeal challenging a Stonington murder conviction is scheduled to be taken up by the Supreme Court on March 7 in Hartford.
Correa is serving a life sentence for the Dec. 20, 2017, murders of Kenneth, 56, and Janet Lindquist, 61, along with the couple's 21-year-old son Matthew Lindquist. Correa's sister, Ruth Correa, is serving a 40-year prison sentence for her role in the murders.
Correa and his sister had traveled to Griswold on the night of the murders to meet up with Matthew Lindquist, who had agreed to exchange access to his father's guns for drugs and cash. But Correa and his sister instead stabbed Matthew Lindquist to death and left him in the woods near his home before going inside to torture and kill Kenneth and Janet Lindquist. Sergio Correa beat Kenneth Lindquist to death with a baseball bat and similarly beat and strangled Janet Lindquist. The siblings stole valuables from the home and set fire to the home before fleeing.
Police seized Correa's phone during questioning and despite Correa locking the phone, were able to extract its contents, which were later used to find text messages between Correa and Matthew Lindquist. Senior Assistant State's Attorney Ronald G. Weller is handling the Correa case for the state.
Eric Lindquist, son of the late Janet and Kenneth Lindquist, said this week he was aware of the upcoming hearing but declined to comment.
The Supreme Court, on March 7, will hear arguments in an appeal for Carlton Henderson, a Pawcatuck man sentenced to 70 years in prison for the 2019 stabbing death of his former girlfriend Brandia Irvin in Stonington in the presence of his young son. During the case tried before Judge Shari Murphy in New London Superior Court, his defense had unsuccessfully argued for a special jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance. His attorneys have argue that the trial court abused its discretion and violated the defendant's right to present a defense by denying his request...'
Attorneys for Henderson will argue the admitted PCP addict was stressed over the loss of the relationship with his girlfriend and son, which led to increased consumption of alcohol and drugs.
g.smith@theday.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
12 hours ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision'
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision' Show Caption Hide Caption Trump on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia President Trump spoke with reporters on Air Force One on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said in a new interview that he didn't speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the United States to face human trafficking charges, saying the move wasn't his choice. Trump told NBC News on June 7 it "wasn't my decision" to bring Abrego Garcia back to the country. Instead, he told the outlet the U.S. Justice Department 'decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three from Maryland, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 court order barring his removal. His case drew national attention, after a standoff among the Trump administration, the courts and some congressional Democrats over his release. In April, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials claimed they couldn't force a sovereign nation − El Salvador − to relinquish a prisoner. The Trump administration insists that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, but a federal judge had previously questioned the strength of the government's evidence. Abrego Garcia denies being a gang member. Now, the Maryland man faces new charges on American soil. At a June 6 press conference, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Abrego Garcia of making over 100 trips to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the nation. The indictment against Abrego Garcia alleges that he and co-conspirators worked with people in other countries to transport immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico, and then took the people from Houston to Maryland, often varying their routes, and coming up with cover stories about construction if they were pulled over. Trump told NBC News he believes "it should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors. But Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, criticized the Justice Department for bringing these charges at all: "Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice." Contributing: USA TODAY Staff
Los Angeles Times
15 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
