Murray R. Gold Trials: 1976-92

Gold's attorneys petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to reverse the verdict. Early in 1991, Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum heard psychiatrist Dr. Walter A. Borden, who had reviewed trial transcripts and interviewed Gold, conclude that "he is incompetent to stand trial [and] to take care of his person."

The defense tried to call Judge Lavery, who had presided over the fourth trial, to testify on his observations of Gold's demeanor during that trial, but Judge Scheinblum refused to put Lavery on the stand. Two medical experts testifying for the prosecution, however, admitted that three psychiatric reports had found Gold incompetent to stand the trial that brought his conviction.

On March 11, Judge Scheinblum ruled that Gold had not been legally competent during the fourth trial and "had not been afforded effective assistance of counsel" because the defense had "failed to take sufficient care to monitor and evaluate the petitioner's mental health during the course of the trial." The judge granted the writ of habeas corpus and a new trial.

The state appealed. On January 15, 1992, before the five-judge Supreme Court of Connecticut, Assistant State's Attorney James A. Killen argued that Judge Scheinblum had abused his discretion in refusing to allow the trial judge to testify in the habeas proceeding.

On June 9, 1992, the judges agreed, four to one, to reverse Judge Scheinblum's decision, remanding the Gold case for a new habeas corpus hearing. Three years later, on May 16, 1995, Waterbury Superior Court Judge Samuel J. Sferrazza, citing Gold's persistent refusal to appear in hearings and noting that the defense had not been presented in a diligent manner, dismissed Gold's petition for habeas corpus. Gold remained incarcerated.