A Connecticut attorney sentenced to 2½ years in prison in June after being convicted of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a man outside his Litchfield law firm in 2021 is appealing the conviction.
The 134-page page brief laying the groundwork for the appeal argues that Robert Fisher Jr.’s right to put on a defense was undermined and that the judge handling his trial, Eliot D. Prescott, “erroneously” gave the jury instructions to ignore cross-examination testimony from an eyewitness.
The appeal brief, filed on Oct. 29 by Hartford-based attorney Jon Schoenhorn, also argues that Prescott failed to disclose until after the trial that he was seeking to become the state’s next Inspector General — a position he was later appointed.
The brief also argues that the prosecutor handling the case, Litchfield Judicial District State’s Attorney David R. Shannon, engaged in “uninvited and prejudicial impropriety” when he suggested to jurors in his closing argument that a guilty verdict for Fisher “would have little consequences,” Schoenhorn writes. He argues that Shannon made it appear to jurors that Fisher would receive a lenient sentence.
Fisher, 79, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in March following a days-long trial in connection with the shooting death of 39-year-old Matthew Bromley on June 7, 2021.
CT attorney gets 2 1/2 years in prison in fatal shooting of man outside his law firm in Litchfield
Fisher was involved in an altercation with Bromley in a parking lot at 46 West St. outside the offices of Cramer & Anderson LLP — where Fisher was a partner — shortly after 4:40 p.m., according to court documents.
State police received multiple calls about the shooting, including one from Fisher. Fisher told investigators Bromley had followed him into the lot where he approached his vehicle and opened the door before punching him several times and threatening to kill him.
Fisher was able to get out of the car and draw his legally owned handgun, court documents said. He told investigators he fired when Bromley allegedly charged at him.
At the trial, prosecutors affirmed that Bromley was seen backing away and that Fisher did not have to shoot him.
Authorities were never able to establish a motive for the attack. They found that Bromley had called the law firm about a week prior to the incident asking about his mother’s home, which was going into foreclosure, but that Fisher told him during a brief conversation he did not handle foreclosures.
In his appeal to the Appellate Court, Schoenhorn argues that Prescott failing to disclose that he was a finalist to become the state’s next Inspector General “created the appearance of judicial bias that, at a minimum, required informing” Fisher and his trial attorney or possibly even recusing himself. In seeking a prosecutorial position with the state Division of Criminal Justice, Schoenhorn alleges that Prescott “created a situation where the judge’s objectivity might reasonably be questioned.”
“While the defendant points to no evidence that Judge Prescott harbored actual bias toward him or engaged in any impropriety,” Schoenhorn writes, “the question remains whether his decision to preside over a criminal case while not disclosing his pending application for a prosecutorial position created the ‘perception’ that he was no longer impartial.”
Schoenhorn also argues that the defense was barred from disclosing that retired Litchfield State’s Attorney Devon Stilson, a “a key character witness,” was a former prosecutor. He contends that this decision was an “error” and one that “interfered with his constitutional right to present a defense.”
“Because the defendant’s character as a peaceful and ‘levelheaded’ person was critical to demonstrating that his reaction to the vicious unprovoked physical attack upon him was justified, this unwarranted restriction effectively undermined his only defense to the manslaughter charge,” Schoenhorn writes.
“The state conceded Stilson’s testimony was relevant character evidence to show that Mr. Fisher was slow to anger and was a peaceful person…,” Schoenhorn writes.
According to the brief, Schoenhorn also argues that Shannon made “prejudicial and improper” statements during closing arguments “that likely impacted the jury’s verdict.”
Shannon, Schoenhorn said, suggested to jurors that their verdict would be “offset by the court’s leniency in sentencing.”
“Remarking about a potential light sentence obviously was intended to convey precisely what is forbidden: Make the jurors assume there would be a lenient sentence because the judge was ‘pretty experienced in these matters,’” the brief states. “The remark was delivered in a back-handed fashion with the prefatory statement that jurors should not worry about the consequences of a conviction while immediately suggesting that he won’t face incarceration.”
Schoenhorn also argues that Shannon “improperly appealed to the bias and prejudices of the jury” by suggesting that Fisher shot Bromley over his “pride” and the apparent “socioeconomic disparity” between the two.
According to the brief, Prescott also erred when he instructed the jury to ignore the “substantive nature” of cross examination testimony given by Nakisha Marrero, an eyewitness to the attack. During cross-examination, Marrero admitted that her 2021 statement to police that Bromley was advancing towards Fisher at the moment he was shot was more accurate than her retracted direct examination on the stand when she said he was retreating, Schoenhorn contends.
Schoenhorn also argues that a motion to set the verdict aside should have been granted after Fisher was found guilty. That motion made the argument that “the conviction was inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and resulted in manifest injustice.”
Marrero’s “inconsistent testimony” was one of the key issues in the motion, Schoenhorn writes.