Little Pink House_ A True Story of Defiance and Courage - Jeff Benedict [113]
As a judge, he spent most of his time presiding over criminal trials. He then started presiding over civil trials, in 1993. In preparation for the Kelo trial, he carefully studied the arguments raised in pretrial filings by the property owners and the city. He had never handled an eminent-domain case, and the issues were unlike any he had previously encountered in his thirty-three-year legal career. Since the entire case rested on the interpretation of state statutes and constitutional rights, there would be no jury. Judges ruled on matters of law; juries heard factual disputes. Ultimately, it would fall to Corradino to decide whether the plaintiffs got to keep their homes or not.
Everyone stood when Corradino entered the courtroom, wearing his trademark bifocals, and took his place behind the bench at ten minutes to ten. Short and slightly overweight with black hair that was turning gray, he resembled the late Italian actor Vincent Gardenia.
“Good morning,” he said. “This is the case of Susette Kelo v. the City of New London. Could the lawyers identify themselves? That may be a lengthy process in this case.”
The audience appreciated his dry humor as eight lawyers stood up: Bullock, Berliner, and Sawyer for the property owners; Londregan for the city; and four lawyers for the NLDC. After some preliminary administrative matters with the attorneys, Corradino asked for opening statements.
“Good morning, Your Honor,” Bullock said. “This case is about the abuse of government eminent-domain power. Eminent domain is the ability to throw individuals off their land and out of their homes.”
Seated beside Matt Dery and his family, Susette couldn’t help feeling intimidated by the formality of the proceedings. She had trouble concentrating as Bullock outlined the two restrictions placed on eminent domain by the Framers: just compensation and the requirement that private land can be taken only for public use.
“In this case the evidence will show that the defendants have exceeded those constitutional limits with potentially a devastating effect on families who live in the historic Fort Trumbull neighborhood,” Bullock continued. “In this case we’re not really talking about the City of New London because … the government who rightfully exercises eminent-domain authority has delegated this power to private parties for primarily private gain. For instance, the proposed future use of the land in the municipal-development plan was determined largely by a private company, Pfizer, to complement the building of their new facility.”
Bullock insisted his clients didn’t oppose development; they opposed being forced out of their homes by an agency that couldn’t even specify what it planned to do with their land.
He wrapped up with a nod to a past Supreme Court justice. “Your Honor, just as Potter Stewart once tellingly observed, property does not have rights, only people do. And while we are debating the finer points of constitutional law in Connecticut, it is important not to forget that there are real people whose lives and livelihood are at stake in this matter, and we will be hearing from them very soon.”
Londregan rose and got right to the point. “Your Honor, simply stated the City of New London followed state statutes,” he said with some swagger. “What the plaintiffs are really asking this court to do is to design and adopt a different plan than that which was approved by the legislative body of the City of New London.”
He argued that the law authorized the city to delegate the power of eminent domain to an agency like the NLDC. And the law didn’t require the private land acquired by the city to be used for a public purpose. “There’s a specific statute that allows economic