Norwalk v Doutel - Summary
Prosecution Delaying/Playing Games
Ever since Mr. Doutel rejected a plea of Accelerated Rehab and decided to fight his case since he did nothing criminal, State's Attorney Lockshier has sought to delay and confuse the case against Mr. Doutel. State's Attorney Lockshier started the case with a charge of Threatening in the Second Degree, but several months into the case, substituted the charge for Harrassment in the Second Degree.
Clearly, Threatening in the Second Degree was never going to gain traction in this case. State's Attorney Lockshier could have substituted the charge to Harrassment right from the start to simplify the case. Instead, State's Attorney Lockshier's argument is that the charge was changed later to offer a protective order for the 'victims' in this case. If this were the case, why did State's Attorney Lockshier not just add the charge of Harrassment at the beginning? State's Attorney Lockshier could have removed the threatening charge at any time after that if necessary.
Instead State's Attorney Lockshier sought to delay the case and confuse the issue by having the judge order conditions of release based on the charge of Threatening in the Second Degree and then complicate the issue by then changing the charge to Harrassment in the Second Degree and getting the court to issue a protective order as well.
In every hearing, you can see State's Attorney Lockshier argue to try and delay the argument of whether either order is justified. This is an attempt to delay Mr. Doutel in being allowed to exercise his human right to possess the means to defend himself. Remember, that nowhere in the case is any implicit or explicit threat of violence with a firearm mentioned.
After the second hearing, State's Attorney Lockshier sought to try and keep as much of the progress of this case occurring behind closed doors in the judge's chambers as possible where no public transcript would be created. This is pretty understandable with how badly the testimony by the state's witnesses is making State's Attorney Lockshier look in front of the court and the public.
During a hearing on 05/07/2012, Judge Hudock decided to delay Mr. Doutel’s court appearance for another four months. Judge Hudock refused to hear the motion Attorney Baird filed to disclose the police report and Judge Hudock also refused to hear a motion raised by Norwalk’s Chief Counsel Jeffrey Spahr to return Mrs. Doutel’s firearms.
Clearly the court is now willing to reveal itself a co-conspirator in delaying this case as long as possible and using silly court procedures to penalize Mr. Doutel in the clear absence of a criminal case against him. Every delay in this case denies Mr. Doutel his fundamental right to bear arms.
Prosecution's Bias Against Firearms
State's Attorney Lockshier makes it clear that she has a significant bias against firearms. Reading through the information she has at her disposal when the case begins, it should be clear that there is no evidence of any kind that Mr. Doutel planned to commit any violence, nevermind any violence involving firearms. The fact that Mr. Doutel carried a firearm with him on a regular basis for self defense is in the spirit of Article 1, Section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution and in the spirit of the Second Amendment of this country's constitution. The fact that Mr. Doutel carried a firearm is merely circumstantial to the claim that he was angry on a phone call, and yet it was used as 'definitive proof' that he was somehow a dangerous person threatening violence on a doctor and his staff.
Was Officer Zwickler Buffaloed by a Convicted Federal Felon? Or is Officer Zwickler a liar?
Officer Zwickler responded to a complaint at Dr. Staw's medical office. In taking the statement of Dr. Staw and his staff, Officer Zwickler fails to investigate the complaintant the fact that Dr. Staw is a convicted Federal Felon who was convicted of Health Insurance Fraud. This is a conviction of lying. This should be a huge red flag to any officer when a convicted liar's statement is being used against an honorable and law abiding citizen like Mr. Doutel.
In a motion filed by Attorney Baird on 05/07/2012, Attorney Baird and Mr. Doutel bring up clear evidence contained in Officer Zwickler’s police report and point out the inconsistencies between Officer Zwickler’s accounts of his discussions with the ‘victims’ and their own testimonies in court. This is especially disturbing considering the court refuses to even hear the motion to disclose the police report and the prosecution is essentially basing their entire case on the accounts of the ‘victims’ and Officer Zwickler’s reporting of those accounts.
Why would the court, the police department and the prosecutor be so resistant to releasing the police report while the defendant is so anxious to get it out into the public?
Dr. Staw lies to protect himself
Dr. Staw is a convicted Federal Felon. He was convicted of fraud, which is lying. Dr. Staw lied in his statements to police and indicated to Officer Zwickler that Mr. Doutel was 'brandishing' a firearm in his office. Later, under testimony, Dr. Staw cannot recall any presence of firearms by Mr. Doutel in his office other than the most recent time. At that time, Dr. Staw 'suddenly' has memory problems and cannot recall who moved the hat and revealed the firearm, but does testify that he was not alarmed or threatened and that he made no effort to tell Mr. Doutel not to come back with or without the firearm.
What changed between the date Dr. Staw saw Mr. Doutel's firearm and when he called the police was not the innocuous voicemail. Rather, it was the fact that Mr. Doutel had indicated to Dr. Staw that Mr. Doutel was aware of the Federal Conviction and that Mr. Doutel was upset with the doctor's business practices. Those business practices closely resemble what Dr. Staw was originally convicted for.
Dr. Staw insists that Mr. Doutel came into the office with a 'revolver' despite Mr. Doutel owning no such firearm and despite the fact that Mr. Doutel carried a Glock 19 that looks nothing like a revolver. One has to wonder if Dr. Staw even ever saw the firearm or not.
Dr. Staw admits in statements to the police that he found the gun under a hat that he 'moved a few inches', but under testimony, he suddenly 'cannot recall' whether he or Mr. Doutel removed the hat from the firearm.
For good measure, he throws in completely normal things while showing that he is 100% biased against Mr. Doutels lawful carry of a firearm when he insists to the police that Mr. Doutel sleeps with a firearm 'under his pillow' and that Mr. Doutel feels the police are under no obligation to protect him. There is nothing criminal or unbalanced about either concept even if these claims were true.
Sandy Staw is an accomplice to Dr. Staw
Sandy Staw is an accomplice to the lie that Dr. Staw uses saying that Mr. Doutel is 'known to carry a gun' despite Sandy Staw admitting under testimony that she had no such knowledge before Dr. Staw told her of this. She goes on saying numerous misleading statements against Mr. Doutel that are only known to Dr. Staw and fit the narrative of Dr. Staw, but not the reality of the facts testified to.
Casey Doutel is a helpless victim to all of this
While Mr. Doutel is certainly the main victim of this whole lie perpetrated by Dr. Staw and his accomplices, we cannot forget the gross miscarriage of justice and the deprivation of rights against Mrs. Doutel.
Mrs. Doutel had all of her firearms confiscated on the day of Mr. Doutel's arrest. They have not yet been returned over one year later. No probable cause or warrant was ever issued for the search and seizure of Mrs. Doutel's firearms. Mrs. Doutel still possesses a permit to carry pistols and revolvers in the state of Connecticut and is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.
Regardless, the Norwalk Police Department still unlawfully maintains possession of Mrs. Doutel's firearms.
What this means to the citizens of Connecticut
What Mr. and Mrs. Doutel's case should say to the rest of the citizens in Connecticut is that their property and their rights are not safe against the bias and unlawful behavior of the Norwalk Police Department, State's Attorney Lockshier and the Connecticut Judicial System.
The Norwalk Police Department believes, and has gotten away with so far, that taking a statement from a convicted felon that a law abiding citizen lawfully carries a firearm and is not happy with them shoudl result in a search, seizure, arrest and permanent confiscation of that person's firearms. They have given a single rookie officer in their department the ultimate control over a citizen's basic human rights with a downright silly burden of proof.
State's Attorney Lockshier has made it clear to all involved that she wishes to restrict the human rights of people to defend themselves based on nothing but a police report taken from a convicted Federal Felon and his accomplices. She has made it clear that she will bend and pervert the law simply to keep the Doutel's away from their human right of firearm ownership. State's Attorney Lockshier has used the Judicial system of Connecticut against a law abiding veteran to further her anti-rights campaign.
- HHS decision against Dr. Igal Staw based on Felony Health Care Fraud conviction
- Prosecution's motion to lower charge to Creating a Public Disturbance
- Defendant's motion to vacate - 05/23/2011
- Doutel's fourth status update hearing - 07/05/2012
- Doutel's second status update hearing - 07/05/2011
- Denial of Mr. Doutel's Motion to Dismiss
- Doutel's Motion to Dismiss - 07/13/2012
- Doutel's first status update hearing - 05/20/2011
- Defendant's motion to disclose police report - 04/05/2012
- Officer Jared Zwickler's incident report
- Doutel's Motion to Dismiss (Memorandum) - 07/13/2012
- Vinnie Penn interview about Norwalk v Doutel and background check fees
- Voicemail recording with captions
- Norwalk's motion to return defendant's property
- Doutel's second hearing - 08/22/2011
- USAO's report on Dr. Igal Staw's sentencing for health care fraud
- Doutel's first hearing - 07/27/2011
- Doutel's third status update hearing - 05/07/2012
- Defendant's motion for Removal of Protective Order
- Defendant's motion for a speedy trial