New Canaan resident Teri Buhl, who is accused of posting the personal journal entries of her then-boyfriend's teenage daughter online, made an appearance in Superior Court at Norwalk Monday morning where her trial was postponed until March 22 due to a judge's absence because of illness.
Judge William Wenzel told Buhl and her attorney Frank DiScala that the case had to be postponed because he had to "cover multiple calendars" equaling about 90 cases due to Judge Maureen Dennis' absence.
DiScala told Judge Wenzel that while the date was convenient for counsel, it was inconvenient for Buhl because it was "inhibiting her from continuing her move out west."
In response to the new court date, Buhl told Judge Wenzel, "We're ready to go... I don't understand."
Buhl told the New Canaan Advertiser in November that she requested a bench trial because she felt "inaccurate reporting" by local media outlets would make it "too hard to pick a jury."
In June 2010, Buhl's boyfriend at the time, a New Canaan resident, and his then 17-year-old daughter, reported to New Canaan police that someone had gained access to the daughter's personal journal and posted excerpts on Facebook.
Containing sexually explicit information, accounts of underage drinking and other personal information, the entries were from a notebook, which father and daughter said she kept in the bedroom of their home.
As the investigation continued, according to an affidavit application filed with the court by Sgt. Carol Ogrinc of the New Canaan Police Department, the Facebook account creation and postings were traced to IP addresses associated with Buhl's Optonline Internet service subscriber account at home on Locust Avenue in New Canaan, as well as to a computer at New Canaan Library.
Buhl was charged with second-degree harassment, second-degree breach of peace and interfering with an officer, all misdemeanors.
Not being known in New Canaan is neither positive nor negative. It is irrelevant.
http://www.ncadvertiser.com/18263/buhl-harassment-trial-postponed-until-march/ Chandra hasn't ever tried to get on the phone and interview any of the parties involved in this case. I actually asked the judge why the case had to be pushed out until the end of March. I didn't understand how he thought judicial law was being followed by waiting 2.5 years to give me a trial. At first he told my lawyer in private chambers he'd start at 2pm and then changed his mind when we went in front of him. It cost time and money to prepare for trial and I was the only trial on the docket today. This is the second time the Norwalk judges have done this. Even after we filed a motion for a speedy trial this spring.
Glen
The potential 1st Amendment implications may explain why accelerated rehabilitation was offered and trial commencement delayed. It would be a mistake to think that the State wants to offer jury trials to every defendant. They clog up calendars, judge's time and are, in general, more costly. It may not be helpful to publicize the contents of conversations in judge's chambers.
your new friend GLEN
Ade - is likely someone I've written about before, a member of the Brody family or even the fired new canaan patch editor who likes to comment on anything I report http://www.teribuhl.com/2012/02/16/new-canaan-patch-editor-plays-favs-for-rtc-chairman-ohora/ In my 6 years of investigative reporting about a dozen people or firms have been arrested, sued by the SEC or shut down by their regulators. Upset subjects of my reporting often comment-unnamed. Just ignore it. As far as the bench trial- I made that choice not the court and yes they still offer AR which I will never take. Another reason for the bench trial was to force the State to set a trial date after I watched them promise several trial dates & it never happens. It will now be two years and 5 months till I get to trial. We've be ready since early 12'. I think that shows a problem in CT's judicial system.
“54-82b. Right to trial by jury. (a) The party accused in a criminal action in the Superior Court may demand a trial by jury of issues which are triable of right by a jury. There is no right to trial by jury in criminal actions where the maximum penalty is a fine of one hundred ninety-nine dollars or in any matter involving violations payable through the Centralized Infractions Bureau where the maximum penalty is a fine of five hundred dollars or less.” So a waiver of a jury trial is a waiver of a right possessed by the accused. The maximum fines for the charges exceed $199. The accused seems to be within her rights. She is under no obligation to reveal legal strategy. The information above is intended for discussion and not intended to be legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer.