Judge rules experts can’t say who hired them in CT state trooper’s manslaughter trial

The trial against Connecticut State Police trooper Brian North, who faces a manslaughter charge in the deadly shooting of Mubarak Soulemane in 2020, continued Monday with a ruling that will bar the defense from mentioning that two experts expected to testify Tuesday were initially consulted by the state when they gave opinions that the trooper’s actions were justified.

Inspector General Robert Devlin, Jr. argued that it would be “unfair” to associate the experts with the state at this point, as they were initially consulted by Middlesex State’s Attorney Michael Gailor before the Office of Inspector General was created in 2021, at which time Devlin took over all officer-involved shooting and in-custody death investigations.

“I disagree with that opinion and their conclusion,” Devlin argued, adding that who initially hired the experts is “just not a material fact.”

Following his investigation into the Jan. 15, 2020, shooting on Campbell Avenue in West Haven, Devlin concluded that North’s actions were not justified, going against the opinions of the experts hired by Gailor. North, 33, faces one count of first-degree manslaughter with a firearm.

Monday marked the sixth day of the trial in the Ansonia-Milford Judicial District Courthouse and the second in which North’s attorney, Bridgeport-based Lawyer Frank Riccio, has presented a defense. Riccio called a Connecticut State Police instructor to the stand Monday and told Judge H. Gordon Hall that he made every effort to get his last two witnesses for Monday’s testimony but that their travel made it impossible.

Riccio is expected to rest his defense once the jury hears from two experts who previously said they believe North was justified when he fired seven shots at Soulemane, who was 19 when he led police in Norwalk on a pursuit after displaying a knife in an AT&T store and stealing a Hyundai Sonata from a Lyft driver. Norwalk officers called off their pursuit on Route 7 before state police began pursuing the Sonata on Interstate 95 upon being incorrectly told the driver was involved in a carjacking.

Following a high-speed chase that involved multiple collisions, the Sonata got off I-95 on Exit 43 in West Haven, where Soulemane struck a Chevrolet Trailblazer and was found unresponsive when he was partially boxed in by state police cruisers just after 5 p.m. State police troopers, including North, and an officer from West Haven surrounded the vehicle before the West Haven officer smashed the passenger side window.

Soulemane — whose family testified earlier in the trial that the teen suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and appeared to be undergoing a psychiatric episode — then woke up and began reaching for a serrated kitchen knife in his waistband. North, who was positioned at the driver’s side of the car with his gun drawn, testified Friday that the teen raised the knife and that he believed the West Haven officer had begun entering the vehicle, prompting him to fire his weapon.

Speaking on the motion to suppress on Tuesday, Riccio argued that it’s always customary when experts are brought in to inquire about who contacted them and if they are being paid to testify.

“That’s standard operating procedure when we speak to any expert,” Riccio argued.

Mentioning that the experts were initially consulted by Gailor speaks to the issue of “credibility and bias” with expert witnesses and would illustrate that, if they had any bias in the matter, it likely would have been skewed toward the prosecutor who initially hired them and not the defense, Riccio added.

“The state of Connecticut hired them,” Riccio said. “Attorney Devlin is a representative of the state of Connecticut.”

“I had nothing to do with hiring these people,” Devlin said.

“There’s a prejudicial aspect to this,” Devlin continued.

In hearing the motion, Hall said a number of things have happened since the experts were initially consulted, including the arrest of his client, and that ultimately it was the decision by the defense to retain them for testimony.

“I don’t see the relevance really of what happened before that,” Hall said.

“I think it’s completely relevant,” Riccio countered.

“I think the relevance is marginal at best,” Hall said, ruling in favor of the state.

Riccio earlier in the day had called Connecticut State Police Trooper Craig Brezniak to the stand to testify about training he had given North. Brezniak has worked as an instructor with the police academy and serves as a coordinator with the Connecticut State Police Tactical Team — which includes troopers with specialized training who respond to potentially hostile situations.

Brezniak began training North for the team in November 2019, after he applied to join. Brezniak testified that firearm instruction was included in the training dealing specifically with, among other things, barriers.

Barriers like windows, doors and walls can affect the trajectory of a bullet, Brezniak testified, adding that tactical team members are generally trained to shoot a hole in barriers before believing that the bullet’s path will be uninterrupted.

During cross-examination, Devlin inquired as to whether state police conduct any firearm training involving one- or two-round drills. Brezniak said yes and was interrupted by Devlin when he attempted to elaborate.

“That’s a yes or no answer, sir,” said Devlin, who has criticized several aspects surrounding the response by police once they found Soulemane unresponsive, including North’s decision not only to fire but to discharge seven rounds.

Brezniak later clarified that low-round drills are usually done for budgetary reasons in instances where the training is focused on something like drawing a weapon and does not require numerous rounds to be fired. Brezniak said he conducted drills with North that included up to 10 rounds being discharged.

The trial is expected to continue Tuesday at 10 a.m. with Riccio’s last two witnesses before he rests his defense.