`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 431199
`
`DOE, JOHN
`
` V.
`PARHAM, JAMES, H
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
` AT HARTFORD
`
`11/3/2020
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`10/29/2020 120.00 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER: DENIED
`
`The case is set for a court trial. An in-person trial is not planned, nor is it necessary. The Judicial Branch
`has demonstrated that it is fully capable of conducting the court trial remotely so as to mitigate the
`effects of the COVID-19 virus. The court also does not accept the defendant's premise that "a remote
`trial is insufficient to protect the Defendant’s rights to due process." The court adopts Judge Taylor's
`reasoning in Lynch v. State, No. HHDCV166067438, 2020 WL 5984790, on all points raised by the
`defendant.
`
`Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order.
`
`431199
`
`Judge: DAVID M SHERIDAN
`
`This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical
`(pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section I.E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services
`Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the
`Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
`
`HHDCV185050136S 11/3/2020
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
