No outside time for man free on bond in EW shooting case
By: Heather Nann Collins, Journal Inquirer
09/01/2006
While East Windsor police have said that Lawrence Shustock shot and wounded his neighbor after an ongoing property-line dispute, Shustock's lawyer said Thursday there's more to what happened than what's been made public.
"This case is not what everyone thinks it is," the lawyer, Hubert J. Santos, said. "There are issues that I don't think are appropriate to argue here. There are aspects to the case - it's not a black-and-white case, I'll say that."
Santos made his remarks to Hartford Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Miano, who considered - and ultimately rejected - a defense motion asking the court to allow Shustock to go outside for a few hours each day.
East Windsor police say that on Jan. 29, Shustock, 74, shot his then-neighbor in the shoulder, seriously wounding him.
A Korean War veteran with no serious prior criminal record, Shustock spent a couple of weeks in jail until his family posted $60,000 cash bond in February.
Among the conditions of Shustock's release was that he live more than 5 miles from the shooting victim; that he not have any guns; and that he wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.
Shustock has lived with his daughter, Elaine Merkouriou, in her 22 Prospect Hill Road home in East Windsor since his release. He is allowed out only to go to medical appointments and legal consultations.
In a letter to the court this week, a bail commissioner said Shustock has been fully compliant with the conditions of his release.
Santos filed a motion - similar to one that was rejected earlier this year - asking the court to allow Shustock to go outside, in his daughter's yard, each day from 10 a.m. to noon, and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. He wouldn't go beyond the perimeter of the yard, Santos said, which is also within the perimeter of the monitoring device's 150-foot limit.
Santos said there have been "mechanical problems" with the device, sometimes triggering an alarm despite Shustock's compliance.
The lawyer also submitted a letter of support to the court from a doctor who said that in his opinion, Shustock "is not a threat" to anyone.
But prosecutor John F. Fahey objected to the motion, telling the court that while the doctor may think Shustock's not a danger, "I think the victim in this case would differ."
While Shustock may not like being cooped up in his daughter's 841-square-foot house, Fahey said, "No matter how restrictive the current environment is, it's not as restrictive as prison, that's for sure."
Miano said the situation is unique because of Shustock's advanced age and essentially clean criminal record.
And while he said he would have granted the motion - the request wasn't necessarily unreasonable, he said - until the monitoring device is more stable and doesn't sound false alarms, Miano said he had to reject the request.
Santos told the court that he will try to get answers from the device's makers and will likely refile the motion at a later date.
Shustock returns to court Sept. 28.
©Journal Inquirer 2006
| 
