Connecticut Post, June 18, 1997 – Bridgeport – A Superior Court jury on Tuesday found a former city man innocent of fatally shooting one man and wounding another in separate incidents in 1994.
The jury deliberated about four hours in two days before finding David Clemons, 32, innocent of murder, attempted murder, first-degree assault and commission of a felony with a firearm.
“The jury did the right thing,” said Robert Sullivan, Clemons’ attorney. “The state’s evidence consisted of two witnesses who clearly lied.”
This is the second time he has been charged with a fatal shooting. In 1994, he was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
During the nearly two-week trial, Clemons was accused of the Jan. 27, 1994 fatal shooting of Christian Feliciano and the April 7, 1994, wounding of Donovan Rosario.
Feliciano, 18, was found lying face down in an empty lot on Arctic Street with gunshot wounds to his head and chest.
Rosario was shot inside the Marina Market on Columbia Street.
Rosario testified he had been shot by Clemons, but under cross-examination he said he originally told police he had been shot by someone else.
Edwardo Ortiz, a former high-ranking member of the Latin Kings who is now serving a federal sentence, testified that Clemons had told him he killed Feliciano.
Clemons did not testify, but his lawyer said the state’s two witnesses lied and his client had nothing to do with the two shootings.
“Eddie Ortiz is seeking to modify his federal sentence by putting other people behind bars, and fortunately, in this case he did not succeed.,” Sullivan said.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Sullivan argued that the Legislature “did not intend for the judiciary to emasculate the rule thought interpretation,” which, he says was precisely the effect of the Damiani decision. “By interpreting the statue in a manner which would avoid funding additional resources by denying the appellant his right to a speedy trial, the court would render meaningless the vigorous debate and legislative energy that went into the passage of the subject act,” Sullivan wrote in his brief to the court.
