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
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
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
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
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
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.