Sitterly won't speak to issues

NORWALK — A defendant in a Norwalk Municipal Court case said charges against him were reduced after a judge determined a law enforcement officer who testified against him at trial provided the court false information. The judge verbally reprimanded the officer at the hearing in open court, the man said. Sitterly The officer has since been promoted, but his name does not appear on the county's Brady list, a compilation of the names of police officers with a history of alleged dishonesty and/or criminal behavior. Huron County prosecutor James Joel Sitterly was the man's attorney at the time, the man said, but Sitterly, who is responsible for compiling the Brady list, refuses to answer questions about the case or acknowledge that what the man contends is accurate. Sitterly won't respond to phone calls or to repeated written requests for verification. He was first asked about the court case on Feb. 2. A check of the Norwalk Municipal Court docket confirms Sitterly represented him and that charges against the man were reduced at a hearing on Oct. 15, 2014, but there is no record there about false testimony or any reprimand in open court. Sitterly was elected prosecutor in 2016 and assumed office in 2017. The man said Sitterly asked for another $2,500 to defend him against the reduced charges, but he opted to enter a no contest plea. A report of the incident filed by the sheriff's office details a neighbor dispute and indicates that the man refused to answer his door when the officer knocked on it. The man contends the officer "scaled the wall" of his home and gained entry through a window, which isn't documented in the report. The report does not make clear how the man was taken into custody. Don't pick up Sitterly has made it a practice to ignore inquiries. In December, he refused for several weeks to respond to written requests for the county's Brady list, but provided two names sometime later after he was the only prosecutor among five county prosecutors surveyed who did not provide answers about the local Brady list. The incidents that land Brady cops, as they are referred to, on the list are required to be disclosed to the court and to defense attorneys if the officer is to be called as a witness at trial. The incidents are exculpatory. Sitterly also has refused to answer questions about whether the sheriff's office has improperly destroyed public records. The sheriff's office stated recently that disciplinary records and internal investigations were "purged" from files according to requirements in labor contracts and the county's records retention schedule. The retention schedule appears to make those records permanent or semi-permanent, however, and labor contracts cannot override the requirements of state law. The sheriff's office has refused to address concerns that it is improperly destroying documents, referring questions about that to Sitterly as its legal counsel. Sitterly has ignored the questions for months, and will not say whether he has assessed the situation, or asked the sheriff's office to stop destroying records improperly, if it is or was occurring. It's also unknown if the sheriff's office is attempting to recover any destroyed documents, is continuing to purge documents, or if any change in practice has been implemented.