Calendar Call

<p><strong>Episode 45 – Conservatorships in Connecticut</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This time on Calendar Call, Mike and Probate Court Administrator Beverly K. Streit-Kefalas discuss the ins and outs of conservatorships in Connecticut. From the average conserved person, to the role of attorneys in conservatorships, this is a deep dive into the process in Connecticut Probate Court.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ctprobate.gov/Pages/Welcome.aspx" target="_blank">CT Probate</a><br></p> <p><strong></strong><a href="http://www.ctprobate.gov/Pages/Conservators.aspx" target="_blank">Conservator Resources</a><span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span></p>

<p><strong>Episode 44 – New Practice Book Section Re: Attorney Registration and MCLE</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>Today, Mike and Alison discuss a revision to the practice book rules regarding MCLE and Attorney Registration. Beginning on January 1, 2022, attorneys who have not registered and/or who have not completed their MCLE are subject to administrative suspension until compliance with the rule can be shown.</p><p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CE001.pdf" target="_blank">MCLE Log</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 43 – Social Media Dos and Don’ts Pt. 3</strong></p> <p>This is the third and final part of our three part series on social media and, more broadly, technology Dos and Don’ts. This week, Mike discusses the use of email security, texting and remote video technology with attorneys Stephen J. Conover, Marcy Tench Stovall and Brendon P. Levesque. </p>

<p><strong>Episode 42 – Social Media Dos and Don’ts Pt. 2</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This is the second part of a three part series on social media and, more broadly, technology Dos and Don’ts. This week, Mike discusses the use of technology to research opponents in litigation, preservation of evidence and advertising on social media with attorneys Stephen J. Conover, Marcy Tench Stovall and Brendon P. Levesque. </p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf#page=9">Rules of Professional Conduct</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 41 – Social Media Dos and Don’ts Pt. 1</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This is the first part of a three part series on social media and, more broadly, technology Dos and Don’ts. This week, Mike discusses the impact of the Rules of Professional Conduct on an attorney’s interaction with technology as well as personal and professional use of social media with attorneys Stephen J. Conover, Marcy Tench Stovall and Brendon P. Levesque. </p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf#page=9">Rules of Professional Conduct</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 40 – Jury Selection Task Force Pt. 2</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>In this episode of Calendar Call, Mike sits down with Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson, former Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers and Judge Omar Williams to talk about the Jury Selection Task Force. In this final part of the podcast, they discuss the Juror Summoning Subcommittee and the Juror Outreach & Education Subcommittee. </p><p><a href="https://jud.ct.gov/Committees/jury_taskforce/ReportJurySelectionTaskForce.pdf" target="_blank">Jury Selection Task Force Final Report</a></p><p><a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/FC/PDF/2021HB-06548-R000577-FC.PDF" target="_blank">An Act Concerning The Recommendations Of The Jury Selection Task Force.</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 39 – Jury Selection Task Force Pt. 1</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>In this episode of Calendar Call, Mike sits down with Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson, former Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers and Judge Omar Williams to talk about the Jury Selection Task Force. They discuss the history of Batson v. Kentucky and the decision from State v. Holmes. They also discuss two subcommittees from the Task Force: the Implicit Bias in the Jury Selection Process and Batson Challenges Subcommittee and the Data, Statutes & Rules Subcommittee. </p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/jury_taskforce/ReportJurySelectionTaskForce.pdf">Jury Selection Task Force Final Report</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 38 – Revisions to the Connecticut Practice Book 2021</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This week, Mike discusses changes to the Connecticut Practice Book with Attorney Joseph Del Ciampo, director of Legal Services. They discuss the effects of the pandemic on the rules-making process and the resulting new and amended rules that have been published in the Practice Book.</p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/PB.htm">Practice Book 2021</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/Podcast/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=22">Episode 18 – Sept. 3</a></p> <p>This podcast counts for 45 minutes toward the ethics/professionalism requirement for attorneys.</p>

<p><strong>Episode 37 -</strong> <strong>Code of Evidence: Materiality and Relevance Pt. 1</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This week in our continued dive into the Code of Evidence, Mike and Judge Prescott are talking about materiality and relevance. They will define each term and explain the difference between the two. They also discuss relevant inferences, successive inferences and adverse inferences. Judge Prescott also touches on cumulative evidence, character evidence and propensity evidence.</p><p> <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2000.pdf#page=15" target="_blank">Code of Evidence</a></p>

<p><strong>Note to Our Listeners:</strong></p><p>We're back! We have resumed recording Calendar Call virtually and will be releasing episodes on a less strict schedule than our every-other-week pre-pandemic schedule. Thank you so much for bearing with us, we hope you're all well. Now, on with the show!</p><p><strong>Episode 36 - Succession Planning</strong><strong></strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This week, Mike talks with Judge Kimberly Knox about everything lawyers need to know about succession planning. Who should have a plan in place? What kinds of things should that plan entail? Who needs to know about the plan? </p><p><a href="https://nysba.org/attorney-resources/planning-ahead-guide/" target="_blank">New York State Bar Association Planning Ahead Guide</a><br></p>

<p>To our listeners:</p><p>We would like to thank you all for listening to our podcast. We want to let you know that we have stopped production of Calendar Call until further notice. We have a list of topics we hope to tackle when we get back, so please keep an eye out for new episodes and e-mail us at CalendarCall@jud.ct.gov if you have suggestions for future episodes. </p><p>Be well and thank you for your continued support.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Mike Bowler and Alison Chandler</p>

<p><strong>Episode 35 – Code of Evidence: Hearsay Pt. III</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>In this final episode on hearsay and its exceptions, Mike and Judge Prescott discuss the exceptions in which the declarant’s availability is required or not required. Before diving into the exceptions in which the declarant’s availability is required, Mike and Judge Prescott discuss business records and photographs.</p> <p>Exceptions when the declarant’s availability is required:</p> <p>Prior inconsistent statements (State v. Whalen) </p> <p>Identification of a person</p> <p>Exceptions where the declarant must be unavailable:</p> <p>Former testimony</p> <p>Dying declaration</p> <p>Statement against civil interests</p> <p>Statement against penal interest</p> <p>Private boundary dispute</p> <p>Reputation of a past generation</p> <p>Statement of pedigree and family relationships</p> <p>Forfeiture by wrongdoing</p> <p>Lastly, they discuss the residual exception and the tender years exception.</p>

<p><strong>Episode 34 – Code of Evidence: Hearsay Pt. II</strong></p> <p>This week, Mike and Judge Prescott move on from the definition of hearsay into some of its many exceptions. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are set up by delineating whether the declarant’s availability is required, not required or if the declarant’s availability is immaterial. Judge Prescott lays out the policy reasons for having exceptions in the first place then delves into the exceptions. </p> <p>In this episode they discuss the following exceptions in which a declarant’s availability is immaterial:</p> <p style="margin-left: 60px;">A statement by a party opponent.</p> <p> A spontaneous utterance</p> <p> A statement for purposes of obtaining medical diagnosis or treatment </p> <p> Recorded recollection</p> <p> Public records and reports</p> <p> Statements in ancient documents</p> <p> Published compilations</p> <p> Statement in a family Bible</p> <p> Personal identification</p><p> Statements in learned treatises </p><p><a href="https://jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2000.pdf#page=39" target="_blank">Sec. 8-3. Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial</a> </p>

<p><strong>Episode 33 -</strong> <strong>Code of Evidence: Hearsay Pt. I</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This week in our continued dive into the Code of Evidence, Mike and Judge Prescott are talking about the hearsay rule. The Code of Evidence defines hearsay as, “a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the proceeding offered in evidence to establish the truth of the matter asserted.” </p> <p>The Code defines a statement as, “any written or oral assertion, or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” The important thing here is the subjective intent of the declarant in whether or not they intend the statement to be an assertion. </p> <p>An assertion is a communication, made by a person, which is intended to convey information. </p> <p>When it comes to “the truth of the matter asserted,” you need to look at why the statement is being offered. If it is being offered as proof of the contents of the statement, then it is hearsay. </p> <p>What we are really after in this analysis is if the statement is hearsay because if it is hearsay, there are concerns about its reliability. </p> <p><a href="https://jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2000_0218.pdf#page=306">Code of Evidence: Definition of Hearsay</a></p>

<p><strong>Episode 32 – Jury Administration</strong></p> <p><strong></strong></p> <p>This week, Mike sits down with Esther Harris to discuss how juries are summoned in Connecticut. The Jury Administrator is responsible for summoning jurors and making sure the jurors are qualified to serve on a jury. The names of potential jurors are compiled from four source lists. Those lists come from the Department of Revenue Services, the Department of Labor, the DMV and the registrar of voters. Each year, more than a half million people are summoned to serve on a jury in Connecticut. This is how those jurors are summoned.</p><p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/jury/default.htm" target="_blank">Jury Administration</a><br></p>