QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, said he was “happy to discuss” the reasons why he believes Elicker’s statement was false. “Unfortunately, despite the court’s very strict guidance, we know as trial lawyers that some jurors do not follow the admonition not to look at the press,” he said. For that reason, he continued, he believes Elicker’s comment could “put into the jury’s mind that the city has been reasonable, and the only reason we are here is because we have not [been].”
--------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: After the jury left the courtroom at 4 p.m., another one of Morant’s attorneys, Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, said, “I understand why the mayor felt he needed to respond because I think there has been a lot of press coverage, and the position the city is taking in this case is politically and morally reprehensible.” “But,” she continued, “that doesn’t justify making statements about what we believe to be confidential discussions…that are false, and we are in a position where we can’t respond without violating confidentiality.” Benvenutti Hoffmann made two requests of the judge: first, to issue an order precluding any further discussion of the parties’ settlement talks. Second, to either require the mayor to issue a formal retraction of his statement, or to allow the plaintiffs to issue a limited statement themselves."
-------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judge Gags Mayor" by Reporter Mona Mahadevan, Published by The New Haven Independent on May 13, 2026.
GIST: U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala ordered Mayor Justin Elicker into her Hartford courtroom on Wednesday afternoon and issued an order prohibiting him from speaking to the public about an ongoing wrongful-conviction trial.
If reporters ask questions about the case, Nagala told Elicker, “You’re going to say, ‘You’ve been ordered by the court to not make any public statements about this case for the duration of the trial, pertaining to the settlement or anything else.’”
The case in question is Stefon Morant v. City of New Haven. Morant is suing New Haven and a group of former city detectives for allegedly framing him and Scott Lewis for the 1990 double murder of former alderman Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields.
The trial is now in its third week of being heard before a ten-person jury in Nagala’s Hartford federal courtroom.
Wednesday’s gag order was prompted by a quote printed in an article written by Nathaniel Rosenberg of Heast Connecticut earlier in the day. Rosenberg wrote that Elicker described Morant’s settlement request as “well beyond what is reasonable.” Nick Brustin, an attorney representing Morant, discovered Rosenberg’s piece at around 10:45 a.m. Brustin then asked Nagala to summon Elicker to Hartford, describing the mayor’s remarks as “a lie.”
Nagala ordered Elicker into her courtroom at 4:15 p.m. After the jury left the courtroom at 4 p.m., another one of Morant’s attorneys, Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, said, “I understand why the mayor felt he needed to respond because I think there has been a lot of press coverage, and the position the city is taking in this case is politically and morally reprehensible.”
“But,” she continued, “that doesn’t justify making statements about what we believe to be confidential discussions…that are false, and we are in a position where we can’t respond without violating confidentiality.”
Benvenutti Hoffmann made two requests of the judge: first, to issue an order precluding any further discussion of the parties’ settlement talks. Second, to either require the mayor to issue a formal retraction of his statement, or to allow the plaintiffs to issue a limited statement themselves.
Thomas Gerarde, the attorney representing the City of New Haven in this civil-rights trial, agreed with the first request and questioned the second.
He also said the problem had less to due with violating confidentiality and more to do with trial publicity. The conversation presently occurring in the courtroom, he pointed out, would attract even more coverage. “Now that’s all public, [and] the mayor’s been called a liar,” said Gerarde.
“The mayor put himself in this position,” rebutted Nagala. “I’m not sympathetic to the position that [the trial is] now being covered more” as a result.
She then asked Gerarde specifically about Elicker’s statement that Morant’s demands were “so far beyond what any other case has settled for.”
“From your perspective, and to your knowledge,” she asked, “is that statement false?”
“We debated that,” responded Gerarde. “It depends.”
Nagala pressed, “Has the city ever settled a case for larger than the amounts” that may be at hand here?
Gerarde responded affirmatively. The judge inquired into which case. Gerarde said it involved a quadriplegic. “The Randy Cox case?” asked Nagala. Gerarde responded in the affirmative.
The case of Randy Cox, who suffered paralyzing injuries while in police custody in 2022, was settled by the City of New Haven for $45 million. According to a press conference, Cox initially sought $100 million in damages.
Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, said he was “happy to discuss” the reasons why he believes Elicker’s statement was false.
“Unfortunately, despite the court’s very strict guidance, we know as trial lawyers that some jurors do not follow the admonition not to look at the press,” he said. For that reason, he continued, he believes Elicker’s comment could “put into the jury’s mind that the city has been reasonable, and the only reason we are here is because we have not [been].”
Later on in court on Wednesday, Gerarde raised additional concerns related to trial publicity. “Mr. Lewis [told the Independent that] the city should pay $100 million in this case. When all that’s out there, I think it’s easy to fall into a trap,” said Gerarde. “Everyone should be admonished to not say anything, no matter how hard it is.”
Nagala was not receptive to that point. “Mr. Lewis is not a party [in the case], and he’s not the mayor of New Haven.”
At one point, the judge read directly from one of the Independent’s articles, where Elicker is quoted as saying, “I work really hard to be transparent and answer questions from the press,” and “I haven’t talked with the judge. I want to make sure I don’t make comments before hearing about the concerns from the judge.”
“That’s astonishing,” exclaimed Brustin. “How is he still making public statements?”
Gerarde characterized the comment as “following the court’s order” not to make statements to the press.
“The only conceivable right answer to [questions about the case] was, ‘No comment,’” said Brustin.
Nagala was clearly frustrated. “I’m highly disappointed and annoyed that I have to” stress to the jury that they should not look at the press “because of the comments” made by “the mayor of New Haven.”
Elicker Stands By Settlement Statement
In court on Wednesday afternoon, Elicker walked to the witness stand and took the oath to tell the truth. The judge began her questioning of the mayor by reading directly from news articles published by the New Haven Register and the New Haven Independent.
In an article published by the Register, “You are quoted as having said that in the context of settlement negotiations in this case, the settlement demand made by the plaintiff, Mr. Morant, was ‘well beyond what is reasonable.’” Nagala asked if that was an “accurate quote.”
“Yes,” replied Elicker. She went through two other quotes published by the Register.
She then read a quote from Elicker that was printed in an Independent article last week and that stated, “Oftentimes, both parties want to reach a settlement agreement, but sometimes different parties have very different expectations as to what’s an appropriate settlement agreement.” She then asked if that quote was accurate.
“I was clear with the reporter that I was speaking in generalities and not specific in this case,” Elicker responded. He later added, “The Independent frequently doesn’t include all of what I said, and I was specific with that statement that I was speaking in generalities.” (Click here to read the full article, which first quotes Elicker as saying, “I can’t make comments on a specific case.”)
Nagala grilled Elicker on why he decided to speak about the settlement discussions in the Morant case.
“Do you understand that if the jury learns of these comments, it could undermine the integrity and fairness of this lengthy trial?” asked Nagala.
“I didn’t intend for these comments to be received in the way they’re being received,” responded Elicker. “I am doing my best as mayor to respond to the press in a way that is transparent and open,” he added. He also said he is trying to follow guidance from his attorneys.
“Do you stand by” the comment that Morant’s settlement request is far beyond the amounts that the city has settled in previous cases? Nagala asked.
“I do, based on what my attorneys have told me,” responded Elicker.
Nagala ordered the parties to come up with a statement that could “neutralize” or “counteract” Elicker’s comments. Since she is a trial judge, she said she was in a challenging spot to determine the accuracy of Elicker’s statements.
“I hope you take this seriously, Mr. Elicker,” she said. Elicker then left the witness stand.
When the proceedings concluded, Brustin, one of Morant’s attorneys, went up to Elicker and asked, “Do you have anything to say to Mr. Morant?” His co-counsel, Benvenutti Hoffmann, and Gerarde intercepted the two men and told Brustin to stop. Elicker did not respond."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/2026/05/13/judge-orders-mayor-to-court-over-settlement-comment/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
