Re: Application No. 98-01

January 12, 2000

The undersigned was appointed a Grand Juror by the Chief Court Administrator to conduct an investigation into the matters contained in an order of the Investigatory Grand Jury Panel made in connection with Application No. 98-01, which was submitted to the Panel by Jonathan C. Benedict, State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Fairfield. The Investigatory Grand Jury Panel defined the scope of the investigation as "the homicide of Martha Moxley on the night of October 30-31, 1975." Having competed this investigation, I herewith file my report in accordance with General Statutes § 54-47g.

In the application for the appointment of an investigatory grand jury, Jonathan C. Benedict, the State’s Attorney for the Judicial of Fairfield, stated the following: "The investigative efforts of the Office of the State’s Attorney, while substantial, have been significantly impaired by its inability to compel production of appropriate records and the testimony of witnesses under oath. Resort to the use of an investigatory grand jury, which permits utilization of such tools when traditional investigative efforts have failed, provides the only remaining method for determining the identification of the person or persons responsible for the crimes." The techniques that Mr. Benedict considered necessary to complete the investigation into the homicide of Martha Moxley were utilized and the undersigned heard testimony from fifty-three witnesses. An official record was made of all proceedings and State’s Attorney Jonathan C. benedict has a stenographic record of the proceedings.

Section 54-47g of the General Statutes provides that an investigatory grand jury shall state whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime or crimes have been committed. Evidence that was submitted to the undersigned grand Juror clearly shows that there is probable cause to believe the crime of murder, as defined by General Statutes § 53a-54a, was committed. Evidence was also presented with respect to identifying the person or persons who committed the crime. The evidence shows that there is probable cause to support an application for an arrest warrant.

An investigatory grand jury, whether one person or a panel, does not have the power to charge, present, indict, or otherwise accuse a person of crime. The Connecticut Supreme Court has described the powers of an investigatory grand jury as follows: "An investigatory grand jury…is not an adversary proceeding in which the parties present their respective positions and have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Furthermore, and investigatory grand jury has no authority to try, condemn or accuse parties under investigation." State v. Blaske, 202 Conn. 541, 555, 522, A.2d 753(1987)(emphasis added). Basically, the sole function of an investigatory grand jury is to gather evidence.

The State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Fairfield now has in his possession a transcri9pt of the testimonial evidence gathered during the investigation. Whether the evidence that was gathered should now be utilized by State’s Attorney Jonathan C. Benedict in an application for an arrest warrant is a matter that is within his sole discretion. See Gen Stat. § 51-286a(a).

In summary, the investigatory process was a vehicle to subpoena witnesses, require them to testify under oath, and to record and preserve their testimonies. This task has been accomplished. Martha Moxley was murdered on the night of October 30-31, 1975. The State’s Attorney for the District of Fairfield has available to him evidence that he may use to prepare an application for an arrest warrant.

Respectfully submitted,

George N. Thim
Judge of the Superior Court
Of the State of Connecticut