CT: Connecticut woman sentenced to year in jail for voyeurism

Source: apnews.com 11/29/22

A wealthy Connecticut woman whose criminal case file was sealed from public view was sentenced Tuesday to one year in jail for secretly recording three people, including a minor, in a manner involving sexual desire.

Hadley _____, 54, of Greenwich, was led out of the state courtroom in Stamford in handcuffs by judicial marshals. She declined to make a statement on her behalf during the hearing, only answering several yes or no questions by the judge.

Judge John Blawie, who sealed _____’s case file earlier this year over objections by the The Associated Press, ordered that the file remain sealed Tuesday, keeping the specifics of the charges included in an arrest warrant shielded from public view.

Blawie previously ruled the privacy of the victims outweighed the public’s interest in seeing the case documents, and it was not possible to redact all the documents to sufficiently protect the victims’ identities. The AP disagreed, saying documents in many other Connecticut cases involving sex crimes have been redacted in ways to protect the victims.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A “Peeping Tammy” instead of a Peeping Tom?

I guess her apparent wealth convinced the Judge that the record should be sealed. Sorry, but there just seems to be no other good reason for sealing the case records.

(Question for a lawyer: The child pornography charges were dropped at the State level, so couldn’t the Feds pursue those CP charges? Or would that still be considered “double jeopardy” even if the State didn’t pursue it??

Good old redaction. That’s how they get to be so secretive, authority I mean. WI SOR forms contain information about potential penalties as does the website. These days they’re calling it it a “portal” and not a website. Anyway, in the FTR Context “potential penalties for convictions” is not permitted as evidence as to guilt for a jury. States AG hold its a burden which may sway the question of guilt for a jury. That’s where redaction comes into play for the bench court. My general beef is that’s precisely how political government gets over on the people, through what’s not being made public. If any American can hide, it cannot be the person in the victim stance ( plaintiff). If an offensive act is enough to need for state action ” facing the accuser” no matter how innocent plaintiffs are is still a must! We’ve gotten too far away from that necessity ratified under the constitution. Murdered people have their pictures displayed to juries sometimes, both alive and dead, yet that doesn’t necessarily mean factual guilt! See exoneration.

Until people realize that sexual offending is not committed by monsters, but rather troubled people, we will continue to use the hammer of the law to fix what can only be fixed by understanding why people offend, and giving them a path off before they destroy their lives and cause serious harm to others.

The special treatment this woman received should be available to all first time offenders situated similarly, but that would be justice, and we don’t have that here in the US.

I seen a video about her. Sh’e a millionaire so at least doesn’t have to worry about money when he gets out of prison.