Richard Lapointe Trial: 1992

When Lapointe's appeal was formally filed on February 27, 1995, attorneys John Williams and Norman Pattis sought not only a reversal of Lapointe's conviction, but a new law requiring police to record interrogations that produce confessions. The appeal questioned whether or not the due process clause of Connecticut state law required electronic taping of confessions and advisement of Miranda rights. Two further points directly questioned Lapointe's ability to understand his legal situation during his interrogation. Specifically, attorneys questioned whether the trial court had erred in concluding that Lapointe was not in custody during his second and third confessions and in ruling that Lapointe had "knowingly and intelligently" waived his right to counsel. As the appeal was weighed, the pitch of a public relations battle between Lapointe's defenders and the state justice system rose. International advocates for the mentally handicapped increasingly cited the Lapointe case as an example of a retarded defendant's rights being trampled. Connecticut critics of Lapointe's conviction called publicly for the resignation of chief state's attorney John M. Bailey over his refusal to reexamine the case. Area attorneys and newspaper editorials agreed that regardless of the truth about the Martin murder, Lapointe's trial had been unfair.

On July 5, 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court voted 5-2 to uphold Lapointe's conviction. The court rejected contentions that taped confessions were a constitutional right and that Lapointe's confession was obtained involuntarily. Lapointe's attorneys had argued that the hydrocephalic condition from which he suffered, Dandy Walker Syndrome, made him liable to confess to whatever he assumed authority figures wanted to hear. The court ruled that there was no evidence that the Manchester detectives had forced the confessions from Lapointe or restrained him against his will during the long interrogation.

The state court's decision was as controversial as Lapointe's conviction itself. Although his supporters continued to petition for his retrial or release, the 1996 decision forced them to argue increasingly finer legal points to make the case for his freedom.