Correspondence from Whelan and Watts to Judge Hammer Re: Transcript Reading Clarifications

Correspondence
February 15, 1994

Cite this item
Correspondence from Whelan and Watts to Judge Hammer Re: Transcript Reading Clarifications preview

1 page

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Correspondence from Whelan and Watts to Judge Hammer Re: Transcript Reading Clarifications, 1994. 6b33d4dc-a746-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0d814c88-0ce7-414a-b356-1b8570c86ad2/correspondence-from-whelan-and-watts-to-judge-hammer-re-transcript-reading-clarifications. Accessed November 23, 2025.

    Copied!

    a MacKenzie Hall 
RICHARD BIL.UMENTHAL 110 Sherman Sirect 

ATTORNEY GENERAL Hartdord. CT OR105 

FAX (203) 323-5536 

Office of The Attorney General Tel: 566-7173 

State of Connecticut 

February 15, 1994 

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Judge of the Superior Court 
69 Brooklyn Street 
Rockville, Connecticut 06066 

  RE: Sheff v. O'Neill; Docket No. CV-89-0360977S 

Dear Judge Hammer: 

During arguments before the court on December 16, 1993, the court asked whether 
this office had been in communication with leadership in the General Assembly in regard 
to the present litigation. The purpose of this letter is to supplement our answer to your 
question with up-to-date information. 

Subsequent to the arguments on December 16, 1993, this office offered to meet with 
legislative leaders to provide them with a status report on the Sheff litigation. As a result, 
representatives from the Office of the Attorney General met with Democratic and 
Republican legislative leaders from the House of Representatives and the Senate and 
apprised them of our legal position. 

It is the position of the Office of the Attorney General that the issues which must be 
decided by the court are fully addressed in the various briefs the parties have filed with the 
court. Obviously, discussions with legislative leadership cannot bind the General Assembly 
as a whole, but nothing in our discussions with the leadership raises any basis for the court 
to delay consideration of those issues. 

We hope this update to our answer to your question about our communication with 
legislative leaders corrects any misunderstanding which might have arisen from a reading 
of the transcript of the December 16, 1993 proceedings. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Very oy i 

/ Vl, 
oll wll 
Agsistanit io fo 

7 py 
4 ) y,      

    

   
A M. a 5 

sistant Attorney General 
JRW/MMW:sad / 
CC: All Counsel of Record

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.