ACLU Asks Court to Vacate Decision on Hunger Strike
by Christine Stuart | July 1, 2008 10:41 PM
Posted to Courts
| Legal
The ACLU went to court Tuesday and filed this motion
to prevent the state from force feeding a prisoner who has waged a hunger strike for almost 10-months to protest his conviction.
A court ruling in January gave the state permission to start force feeding William B. Coleman, an inmate who is serving an 8 year sentence for a 2005 rape conviction. Coleman, a British citizen and former Waterbury resident, maintains his innocence and is using the hunger strike to draw attention to what he believes is a wrongful conviction.
The ACLU, according to this press release, wants the court to vacate its decision because force feeding Mr. Coleman would violate his free speech and privacy rights. “Hunger strikes remain an important form of political protest,” Andrew Schneider, ACLU-CT Executive Director, said in the press release.
“A person has a constitutional right to determine what happens to his or her body,” David McGuire, ACLU-CT’s staff attorney, said in the same press release. “Inserting a feeding tube against Mr. Coleman’s will is a violation of his right to bodily integrity and his right to deny medical treatment.”
Coleman told the court during one of his two court appearances in January that “I’m prepared to go as long as it would take, even if I take my life,” he said. “I’m not going to wait for the state of Connecticut to dole out truth and justice.”
Three months into his hunger strike the Department of Corrections filed a lawsuit against Mr. Coleman in an effort to preserve his life.
In January Coleman’s attorney, Rob Serafinowicz, said the state’s motion for a temporary injunction was premature. He said Dr. Edward Blanchette, who testified for the Department of Corrections, was unable to accurately estimate when Mr. Coleman’s hunger strike would cause him irreparable harm.
Mr. Serafinowicz said all Mr. Coleman has done “is alter his diet in response to his conviction, the eventual result of which has yet to be determined.” Following his last court appearance with Mr. Coleman in January, Mr. Serafinowicz conceded that existing case law does not favor his client. He said if Mr. Coleman decides to voluntarily begin eating again, then the state won’t need to put a tube in his nose, however, he added, “I don’t think he’s going to give in.”
Since January, Mr. Coleman has lost about 10 more pounds for a total of 100 pounds. When he entered the Correction system, Mr. Coleman weighed around 250 pounds. Mr. Coleman has continued to consume water, milk, and some juice, but has refused solid food since September 2007.
It’s likely Superior Court Judge James Graham will hear the motion on the order to vacate the temporary injunction he granted the state in January sometime later this month.
Click here and here to read our previous coverage of this case. Note that Mr. Coleman’s family in England also has commented in some of the comment threads.
Comments (2)
Posted by: John DiBiase | July 3, 2008 9:02 PM
I have know Bill Colemansince he first came the the states. He contacted my office about
his divorce with his wife. I believe Bill that he is innocent and he is a victim of false accusations. He loves his two boys and rape is not in his character. He is also a victim of a prejudiced Judiciary System.I have been in communcation with Bill's family since I found out about his incarceration. I hadn't heard from Bill in quite awhile and then I heard thtrough the grapevine
that he was in jail.I have asked Governor Rell to pardon him but have not gotten any reply.
John DiBiase
Father's Rights Activist
Central connecticut Divorce Education Center
Posted by: dan | July 8, 2008 6:45 PM
I took this comment off a previous story on this and am pasting here to add to it:
Posted by: keith | March 7, 2008 9:19 AM
"Everyone knows that once in a while, innocent people are wrongfully convicted. Coleman is a case in point. The only evidence against him was the sayso of his estranged wife, which was given in the context of a bitter divorce and custody battle. There were no witnesses and the police had no forensic evidence. The jury should have acquitted, but didn't. This was a miscarriage of justice and should be corrected."
Prosecutors pawn bad cases off on the judge and the judges pawn them off onto juries. What sounds like it was a really scant case, if so, was not the error of the jury alone.
You have to ask why prosecutors prosecuted such a weak case and why the judge let it go forward. Since when is someone's word alone probable cause for a felony, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt?
These juries often believe strongly that the prosecutors and judge wouldn't have let it get to a jury trial if they didn't think it was a worthy case. Little do they know how how much buck passing goes on.
Prosecutors and judges know when they pass off a deficient case to the jury that they are passing off to a group that usually is inexperienced in law enforcement, has faith that the system wouldn't do that and is naive.
if that is what it was, the judge and prosecutors should be ashamed.