DOCKET NO. FBT-CR12-0263152-0 STATE OF CONNECTICUT V. DOMINIC JOSEPH BADARACCO, SR.

: : : :

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

STATES SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On June 27, 2013, a jury found the defendant guilty of bribery, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a-147, a class C felony carrying a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. The jury necessarily found, consistent with the states proof, that the defendant attempted to thwart a grand jurors investigation into the disappearance of his ex-wife, Mary Badaracco, by offering $100,000 to a judge of the Superior Court to intervene in the investigation. Given the gravity of that conduct, the state asks that the court sentence the defendant to the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by law. The investigatory grand jury at issue in this case was empaneled specifically for the purpose of investigating the disappearance of Mary Badaracco in 1985. Within a month of the grand jurors first hearing evidence the defendant began seeking information about the investigation by asking his friend, Ronald Richter, to contact Judge Robert Brunetti. Although Judge Brunetti was not involved in the investigation, he was then sitting at the Bristol courthouse, in the same Judicial District in which the grand jury sessions were being held. After learning that the grand juror was investigating Mary Badaraccos disappearance the defendant, according to his own evidence, became so concerned about his criminal liability that he liquidated

substantial assets in anticipation of being arrested. Not satisfied, however, that he had learned of the grand jurors inquiry, the defendant then set about to thwart the investigation. He first asked Mr. Richter to again contact Judge Brunetti. When Richter rebuffed the defendants request, the defendant took matters into his own hands. On November 17, 2010, using Richters telephone, the defendant called Judge Brunetti at his home to ask for the judges help with the grand jury. When Judge Brunetti explained that he could not provide any assistance, the defendant resorted to bribery in an effort to impede the grand jurors work. As Judge Brunetti testified, the defendant stated Im only going to say this one time, its worth 100 Gs. General Statutes 53a-147 broadly prohibits attempts to improperly influence public servants in their official responsibilities. State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458, 468, 374 A.2d 1107 (1977). Its scope is not limited to those who are responsible for the administration of justice or the creation of our laws. Id. Rather, by its terms, section 147 applies to all manner of public officials, largely irrespective of the degree of public trust or authority with which the official is vested. In determining an appropriate sentence, however, the court is entitled to and should - make such distinctions. A sentencing judge has very broad discretion in imposing any sentence within the statutory limits and in exercising that discretion he may and should consider matters that would not be admissible at trial. State v. Eric M., 271 Conn. 641, 649, 858 A.2d 767, quoting United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181, 183-184 (2d Cir. 1972). In the context of bribery, those matters include the impact of the defendants conduct on others and on the criminal justice system. Therefore, in fashioning a sentence within the allowable range, a court necessarily must consider, among other things, the type of official conduct that the defendant sought to influence, the office of the public -2-

official whom he sought to corrupt, and the function of government that he attempted to obstruct. Measured by that standard, it is difficult to imagine a more egregious act of bribery. An effort to impede a grand jurors investigation into the disappearance of another human being by attempting to bribe a Superior Court judge strikes at the very foundation of our criminal justice system. Dominic Badaraccos proven conduct demonstrates a thorough disregard for the purpose of the grand jury inquiry and the interests of victims and their families, a complete lack of respect for the office of a judge of the Superior Court, and an abject disrespect for the rule of law. In these circumstances, the only appropriate sentence is the maximum allowed by statute.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

By ______________________________________ LEONARD C. BOYLE Deputy Chief States Attorney Office of the Chief States Attorney 300 Corporate Place, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Juris No. 430172

-3-

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to Richard T. Meehan, Jr., Meehan, Meehan and Gavin, LLP, 76 Lyon Terrace, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604, Telephone: (203) 333-1888; and Edward J. Gavin, Meehan, Meehan and Gavin, LLP, 76 Lyon Terrace, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604, on this 12th day of September, 2013.

________________________________________ Leonard C. Boyle, Deputy Chief States Attorney

-4-