Sealed Criminal Prosecution of Wealthy Connecticut Voyeur

From the Stamford Advocate (Pat Tomlinson) Monday:

A judge last week sealed the case in which a 53-year-old Greenwich woman pleaded guilty to a host of voyeurism charges that stemmed from incidents in which she "knowingly photographed, filmed and recorded" three individuals, one of whom was a minor, without their consent, according to court records.

Hadley Palmer, who lives in a multimillion-dollar seaside mansion in the wealthy Belle Haven neighborhood in Greenwich, pleaded guilty Jan. 19 in state Superior Court in Stamford to three counts of voyeurism and one count of risk of injury to a minor as a part of a plea deal with prosecutors.

Palmer was originally arrested last year on additional charges, including employing a minor in an obscene performance, a Class A felony, conspiracy to employ a minor in an obscene performance and second-degree child pornography, police said….

Attorneys representing the victims in the case supported the motion to seal the case as well….

The state initially argued in favor of redacting documents in the case to protect identities but later said the process proved "impossible to perform."

The Associated Press was the lone dissenting voice against sealing the case, arguing [unsuccessfully] at a Feb. 1 hearing that documents could be redacted and pseudonyms used as in other state court cases involving crimes against children to protect the victims while allowing the public to see the serious nature of the allegations….

Can't be right, I think; I hope some media organizations or public interest firms specializing in open records move to intervene, and if necessary appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court (which provides prompt review in such cases). I'd have liked to do that myself, but I'm too backlogged with other cases, including ones related to unsealing other court records.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Dang if that don’t reek of favoritism.

[DaivdBehar]

Is any charge of voyeurism possible without a symmetrical charge of exhibitionism?

[Soronel Haetir]

Sure, that’s easy. How about the archetypal Japanese subway up-skirt shot? Or really, cameras hidden anywhere someone would normally expect to be private.

Exhibitionism is generally in public (or at least with a chance of being caught), voyeurism doesn’t require that at all.

[Krayt]

Ironically most of those are probably faked. Be dubious when someone does something “illegal”, like up skirt shots in Japan, then is careful to apply blurring to stay within the law.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Peeping Toms?

[Davedave]

I can’t see how the physical form of a charge is relevant. Did you mean ‘symmetric’?

[MatthewSlyfield]

I think he is asking how you can charge someone with voyeurism without charging the victim with indecent exposure.

It’s easy, the victim isn’t deliberately exposing their self to the general public. The voyeur is using various means to invade the victim’s privacy.

[John F. Carr]

Not an equivalent situation, but the Massachusetts courts did tell police that they would start throwing out prostitution cases unless police started arresting johns too.